Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Rates

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government by how much he expects local authorities to lower the level of rates as the result of the Government's economic measures.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I cannot estimate what effect the Government's economic measures will have on rates next year, but I am confident that local authorities will respond to the call to make all proper economies.

Mr. Marten: Is it not the Government's duty to create the conditions in which local authorities can try to lower the level of rates? What are the Government doing about it? Will the abolition of the surcharge, which made rates rise, allow local authorities to bring down rates by that amount?

Mr. Greenwood: The Local Government Bill at present before Parliament will help local authorities substantially to keep rates down. We have also made provision through the rate rebate scheme to help the less well-paid members of the community to shoulder the burden of rates, for the rate burden has been rising steadily as the years have gone by and as services have been expanded and improved.

Mr. Barnes: Will my right hon. Friend agree that rates become fairer the more the burden is shifted from rates to taxation? Will not he consider increasing the extra £30 million that it is proposed to transfer from the Exchequer to local authorities next year?

Mr. Greenwood: The first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question raises a rather wider issue. On the second point, I regret that the answer must be "Not at the moment".

Mr. Rippon: Does the Minister agree that, in spite of the relief in the Local Government Bill, such as it is, even if he does not know everyone else knows that the rate bill next year is likely to rise by about 10 per cent., or £120 million? What does he propose to do about it? Since he asks local authorities to keep rents down, why does he not give some advice on how to keep rates down?

Mr. Greenwood: We have given advice of this kind, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that it will be necessary in this year to meet the further expenditure incurred because of expanded social services provided by local authorities last year. This is the problem which the Tory Government failed to solve. I believe that we are making progress towards solving it.

Buildings of Historic and Architectural Interest

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) whether he will amend the building regulations so that planning authorities have discretion to waive their requirements when applied to buildings listed as being of historic or architectural interest;
(2) whether he will amend the building regulations so that they do not apply to buildings constructed before either 1850 or alternatively 1650.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): The requirements of the regulations can be relaxed in any particular case, and there is a right of appeal if the local authority refuses an application for relaxation. My right hon. Friend does not think it would be right to go further in these cases.

Mr. Cooke: Will the Parliamentary Secretary keep a very close eye on it? Is he aware that some planning officers act like little Hitlers in this matter and apply regulations to the letter? Many old buildings which could be homes for people lie unused and others are ruined


in the process of bringing them up to date?

Mr. Mellish: I undertake that my Ministry will give all the help it can. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular case in mind and will consult us, we shall be glad to discuss the matter with him.

Mr. Hall-Davis: Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary bring his reply to the notice of local authorities and local planning officers? I am sure that this is not known and is causing great difficulty.

Mr. Mellish: Certainly.

Grainthorpe (Playing Fields)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he has refused the Grainthorpe Parish Council's request to sell £700 savings bonds and use the money towards the cost of the playing fields in the village; if he will reconsider his decision; and if he will make a statement.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): Local authorities have been asked to reduce or postpone spending on projects which are not essential. My right hon. Friend would reconsider the decision if there were good reasons for acquiring playing fields now.

Sir C. Osborne: Is not this a small concession to ask from a Government who have increased the Civil Service by 200,000 at a cost of £200 million a year extra? Why do not the Government keep things in proportion and allow small authorities to do this necessary work?

Mr. MacColl: Economy consists of watching the pennies as well as the £s. If in this particular case the parish council has a good case for doing this work now and not waiting, my right hon. Friend is very sympathetic to small authorities, but it is important to remind all local authorities that expenditure must be kept down.

Local Authority Employees (Union Membership)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will take steps to ensure that local auth-

orities do not dismiss employees merely on the ground that the refuse to join a trade union; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mellish: There is a well established tradition, which my right hon. Friend does not propose to break, that local authorities should be left to manage their staff employment matters without interference from him. The operation of closed shop policies by employers generally, including local authorities, comes within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.

Sir C. Osborne: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that Barnsley Corporation has dismissed a little man, a part-time labourer, because the National Union of General and Municipal Workers imposed a £6 fine on him which he refused to pay? Will the Minister do something to stop this petty tyranny by local authorities and trade unions?

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman quotes an individual case. Our Department has no evidence that any local authority services are in jeopardy from the operation of closed shop policies. This must be a matter that is left to people at local level, and let me remind the hon. Gentleman that they are elected locally.

Mr. Bob Brown: Does my hon. Friend not concede that a trade union has the right to impose penalties within its own rules on members who break or defy the union's rules?

Sir C. Osborne: The man is not a member.

Mr. Mellish: Many people in this country are willing and prepared to hold out their hands and take whatever increased wages the trade unions get for them without making the slightest contribution to the particular trade union concerned.

Mr. Allason: Would the Parliamentary Secretary take into account the Minister of Labour's known attitude towards the closed shop and not try to shuffle this off until the Royal Commission has reported, which will be a considerable time?

Mr. Mellish: I am not trying to shuffle anything off. But this argument is out of proportion. One would believe that all local authorities are in a great deal of


chaos because of the closed shop principle. We have no evidence of that, and this must be a matter to be decided at local level and not by the Minister.

Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will do his best to make certain that we do not return to the days when Tory employers used to sack men for being trade unionists?

Mr. Mellish: That is another side of the argument. It is not the Government's policy to interfere with local government on matters of this kind.

Mr. Rippon: Will the Parliamentary Secretary at least give an assurance that it is not the Government's policy to encourage this sort of petty tyranny, and will he understand that what is at stake is not the efficiency of the local government services but the rights of individuals?

Mr. Mellish: The rights of individuals and, of course, the rights of majorities must also never be ignored.

Disabled Persons

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will send a circular to major local authorities recommending them to build special toilets for disabled people.

Mr. MacColl: A recent circular on access to public bulidings for the disabled included advice on the design of cloakroom accommodation. We are very anxious to do all we can to help the disabled. The Department raises the matter with local authoriies seeking loan sanction for public conveniences whenever it appears that provision for disabled persons could reasonably be made.

Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. Friend agree, however, that it is time further pressure was brought in this respect? Is he aware that in many parts of the country there are no toilet facilities which these people can use, and that it is now essential that local authorities should provide some services for them?

Mr. MacColl: I do not think that the circular has yet had its full effect, but my right hon. Friend is in touch with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and is watching the position.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Would my hon. Friend agree that while the circular is

most useful there is a serious problem about existing public conveniences, particularly in central London? Most public conveniences are underground and their access is by difficult steps. Could my hon. Friend try to encourage the use of ramps, the widening of doors and so on in existing public conveniences to help these people?

Mr. NlacColl: I think that local authorities are well aware of the problem, and where they can reasonably make conversions they do so.

South Hampshire Study

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he will take to facilitate the implementation of the recommendations by Professor Buchanan in the South Hampshire Study.

Mr. Greenwood: I am now considering the preliminary views, which I have recently received, of the local authorities which joined with my predecessor in commissioning this report, together with those of the South East and South West Economic Planning Councils.

Mr. Judd: Will not a new form of local or regional Government be essential to see this plan through? What lead does my right hon. Friend's Ministry intend to give in this respect?

Mr. Greenwood: I had better not prejudge the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government or, indeed, future proposals for the organisation of economic planning councils. I have been to see the eastern part of the area in which my hon. Friend is interested in order to complete the review which was started by my predecessor at the western end of the area.

Population Growth Areas

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he proposes to take to help those local authorities which have had a large increase in population over the last 10 years and where larger increases are planned for the next 10 years.

Mr. MacColl: Substantial assistance is given under the new towns and town development legislation, and my right hon. Friend is not so far convinced that


any additional assistance would be warranted.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in areas such as North-East Essex which have had almost the equivalent of a new town, we are most anxious about being given a loan sanction for new sewerage facilities, for example, and, although we realise the need for economy, we want the Minister to look into the matter sympathetically?

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend gives special attention to loan sanctions in areas of development.

Rate Burden (Seaside Areas)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government in view of the fact that the Royal Commission on Local Government will not now report until the winter of 1968, what steps he is taking to alleviate the rate burden, particularly in seaside areas with little industry.

Mr. Greenwood: I invite the attention of the hon. Member to the help given by provisions of the Rating Act, 1966, and the Local Government Bill.

Mr. Ridsdale: As the rate increase is likely to be anything up to 10 per cent. next year, will the Minister say now that any increase above the almost zero norm of the First Secretary of State will be referred at once to the Prices and Incomes Board? Why should we have one law for the rent payer and another for the ratepayer?

Mr. Greenwood: It is impossible to judge individual cases of that kind. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that all areas which have below average rate resources per head of population receive substantial financial help from the Government. For example, Harwich is receiving help to the extent of about one-third of its expenditure and Brightlingsea to the extent of about 40 per cent., so the hon. Gentleman has no real ground of complaint whatever.

Mr. Rippon: Does not the Minister recognise that in their election pledges the Government said that they would transfer the larger part of teachers' salaries to the Exchequer? Does he realise that, if they had given the relief they promised, there would be no question next

Year of these rate increases of 10 percent.?

Mr.Greenwood: larger part is borne by the Exchequer.

Mr. Rippon: What about the promised transfer of more?

Mr. Hall-Davis: Will the Minister consider raising the relief limits under the Rating Act in view of the exceptional circumstances which will prevail next spring?

Mr. Greenwood: Not at this stage of the legislation.

Public Land and Property (Sales)

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he will take, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent local authorities from selling public land and property.

Mr. Greenwood: I am considering whether the conditions of the general consent, which permits local authorities to sell council houses, need any modification. I have no proposals for preventing local authorities from selling other land and property.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some Tory councils, with a rather shortsighted attitude, are selling property which belongs to the community as a whole and from which the community as a whole would benefit over generations?

Mr. Greenwood: There are two parts to this problem. First, as regards council houses, the decision must depend upon local circumstances. There may be no objection to councils selling council houses to tenants or to people on their waiting lists, but it must not be done at the expense of people on the waiting list. As regards other assets, I very much hope that local authorities will consider very carefully before deciding to dispose of assets which have been created through the foresight of their predecessors.

Mr. Lubbock: We very much welcome what the Minister has just said, but will he make a distinction between the selling of existing council houses and the building of houses by local authorities for sale to persons on the waiting lists?

Mr. Greenwood: I appreciate that.

Policy Committees

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will seek to enlarge the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Local Government so as to enable them to consider the growing practice of a number of borough councils within the Greater London area to set up policy committees specifically excluding representatives of the minority group from their deliberations.

Mr. Greenwood: No, Sir. I understand that Sir John Maud's Committee on Management in Local Government are considering the working of the committee system, including no doubt the practice to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Hunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman not at least strongly condemn this deplorable practice, now adopted by the Labour-controlled Camden and Lewisham Borough Councils, which means that in those two boroughs Conservative councillors are being deliberately excluded from the policy-making of councils to which they have been democratically elected?

Mr. Greenwood: I must resist the hon. Gentleman's invitation for me to be too grandmotherly in my approach to local authorities. The law allows them to set up whatever committees they wish and to decide the conditions under which they are to operate. I see no reason to take any action in anticipation of the report which Sir John Maud will no doubt present.

Mr. Hamling: In view of the housing shortage in Bromley, does not my right hon. Friend think that the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt) would be better concerned with his own affairs?

Mr. Rippon: Does not the Minister nevertheless agree that this practice is as unprecedented as it is undesirable?

Mr. Greenwood: I see no reason for saying that it is ipso facto undesirable. If the right hon. Gentleman could produce any evidence that it is producing adverse effects, I will look at it again, but for the moment I see no reason to depart from the law as it stands.

Derelict Motor Cars (Disposal)

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made by local authorities for disposing of derelict cars.

Mr. MacColl: The main item of progress since the hon. Member asked about this in March is that the Greater London Council are now preparing a scheme for disposal of derelict cars throughout their area.

Mr. Longden: Does the Minister and local authorities—and not only in Greater London—realise how urgent a problem this is? Has anything whatever resulted from Circular 8/65? Alternatively, are there any plans for making car owners and manufacturers responsible for giving a decent burial to dead cars?

Mr. MacColl: The problem is greater in Greater London than it is outside. I think that the circular has led to quite an amount of experimental work being begun. I refer the hon. Gentleman also to the Civic Amenities Bill, which will extend the duties of local authorities.

Mrs. Jeger: Is my hon. Friend aware of the excellent scheme in Sweden, whereby abandoned cars are dumped in the depths of the sea? Will he look at the possibility of using a similar method here?

Mr. MacColl: I will look at any suggestion my hon. Friend makes to me.

Water Supplies

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to ensure that water extracted from National Coal Board mines in England and Wales is made available for public use and not allowed to go to waste.

Mr. MacColl: No, Sir. Water from mines varies from time to time both in quality and quantity. The right use for it in each case is best left to river authorities and water undertakers to decide. Where it is not used for public supply it can play a useful part in augmenting river flows.

Mr. Hall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last year some 88,000 million


gallons of water were pumped from N.C.B. mines in England and Wales at a cost approaching 5s. per ton of saleable coal in many of the mines? As this represents about one month's water consumption in a country which is running short of water, should not this problem be considered again?

Mr. MacColl: We are aware of it and we are looking at it. One of the problems is that the overall figure hides the fact that this is spasmodic and varies in quality and is spread over a very wide area.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Mortgage Interest Rates

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he proposes to take in respect of mortgage interest rates in the light of the report by the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Greenwood: I would refer to the reply which I gave to a Question by the right hon. Member on 1st December.—[Vol. 737, c. 144.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman will not indicate the views of the Government yet? Is he aware that rates are due to move on 1st January? This matter has been before his Department for six months. Does he intend to do nothing about it?

Mr. Greenwood: The point which the right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind is that we have received the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on this. It involves a great deal of consideration both by the Government and by the various lending agencies, particularly the Building Societies Association. The Association has a meeting on Friday. It knows well our wish that it should not be necessary for mortgage rates to increase. I have no doubt that the Association will take that into consideration. I do not think that further speculation at this point would be helpful either to the Association or to ourselves.

Cost-Rent Housing Schemes

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps are being taken by his Department

to encourage the growth of cost-rent housing schemes for those mainly unable to acquire council accommodation but also not able to purchase a house of their own.

Mr. Mellish: The Housing Corporation is responsible for encouraging the development of cost-rent and co-owner-ship housing. A total of 371 new associations has been formed since it began work in January 1965, and progress is continuing. Co-ownership societies will be covered by the option mortgage scheme published yesterday and no further stimulus seems to be required from us at present.

Mr. Winnick: Would my hon. Friend agree that there is a desperate need for accommodation, especially for young married couples and those with young children who cannot get council accomomodation and cannot afford to buy a house of their own, and that more should be done to encourage cost-rent housing schemes? Is he aware that in Croydon the local church housing society has taken the initiative by building 50 units of accommodation to be let at cost rents?

Mr. Mellish: Let us get on record that the Government are anxious to extend the principle of co-ownership associations and housing associations. I ask my hon. Friend to wait and see the report of the Housing Corporation. He will find that it is asking to go ahead, and I hope that this movement will expand.

Mr. Allason: The Parliamentary Secretary told us that this will apply to co-ownership schemes, but it is the cost-rent housing associations which really need help. Is it not a fact that the Government have just refused to grant a subsidy when it was requested by the Housing Corporation for this very purpose?

Mr. Mellish: I suggest that the hon. Member raises that question when we debate the Housing Subsidies Bill.

System-built Dwellings

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proposals he has for reducing the cost and stimulating the production of system-built dwellings.

Mr. Mellish: Measures to stimulate the production of system-built dwellings are described in Circular No. 76/65 of which my hon. Friend has a copy. The key to reductions in cost is longer production runs and concentration on the best systems and plan types.

Mrs. Short: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which is very helpful, but would he consider making more use of the agrément boards vis-à-vis local authorities? Would he not think that where particular techniques are not covered by codes of practice or building regulations a certificate from a board could be very useful for a local authority?

Mr. Mellish: I do not wish to go into technical details on system building, but the figures of local authority house building to be issued at the end of the year will show a dramatic increase in the amount of housing produced by industrialised methods. If the firms producing these systems are to succeed they must be given long-term contracts. That is why we are giving many local authorities forward programmes, to enable them to give those long-term contracts.

Mr. Lubbock: What contribution does the Parliamentary Secretary expect from the Component Co-ordination Group, announced last week, towards the cheapening of industrialised housing? Is he satisfied with the progress being made towards the production of industrialised housing in the sphere of two-storey housing?

Mr. Mellish: A great deal is now known on system-building. It is a fact that with high-rise system building is not only faster but cheaper, and that with low-rise it is not so cheap as traditional building but in many instances is faster. I think that the reason is that long-term contracts have not been given for low-rise. We certainly think that the consortium is the right approach to this matter, because then we can give longer-term contracts. That is really the key to the problem. But when the figures are given at the end of the year the House will be generally satisfied with what is being done in this respect.

Mr. Costain: Does the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that certain systems pay the Selective Employment Tax and

others do not? What consultations has he had with the Minister of Labour to sort this out?

Mr. Mellish: If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask a question like that he had better put it down on the Order Paper. There is nothing here about S.E.T.

Houses for Sale (Lists)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what evidence he has as to the success of local authority experiments in providing lists of houses for sale; and what steps he is taking to encourage the extension of this service.

Mr. Mellish: As soon as the seven local authorities taking part in the experiment have had sufficient experience of keeping a register for this purpose, a meeting will be held to assess the value of such a service.

Mr. Roberts: In view of the need, will the Minister give the green light to all local authorities to go ahead and provide facilities for buying and selling houses? Is he aware that home seekers and sellers in Britain are fed up with being fleeced by parasitic estate agents?

Mr. Mellish: The scheme has been under way for only a short time. We should wait and see what we have learnt from this very important experiment, in which seven important local authorities are taking part. I understand that the meeting to which I referred in my Answer will be held early next year.

Mr. Rippon: Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider extending the experiment to lists of council houses for sale, in view of the great success of this scheme in Birmingham?

Mr. Mellish: No, Sir.

Compulsory Purchase (Compensation)

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how he proposes to improve existing legislation covering compensation by local authorities for the compulsory purchase of private houses.

Mr. Greenwood: I take it that my hon. Friend has in mind compensation


paid in respect of houses that have been found unfit. I have no proposals to put forward at present, but this is one of the many problems relating to older houses which are under review.

Mr. Judd: Is there not a good deal of confusion in the existing legislation? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in large areas of development owner-occupiers of limited means feel that they are being asked to bear a disproportionate part of the cost?

Mr. Greenwood: I think that there is a good deal of misunderstanding about this. I have looked very carefully into the special problems which my hon. Friend has in mind, but it should be remembered that site value has been the basis of compensation for many years. We would all agree that it can cause hardship, however, and I am at present looking into ways and means of alleviating this.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is not the trouble due to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor's refusal to accept an Amendment to the Housing (Slum Clearance Compensation) Bill which would have preserved market value for a large number of these houses?

Mr. Greenwood: No, Sir.

Mr. Graham Page: Is not the Minister aware of the grave hardship to owner-occupiers arising from the Government's Housing (Slum Clearance Compensation) Act, 1965? Will he look into a case in my constituency of a compulsory purchase order on several streets of owner-occupied houses which were purchased in recent years for £500 or £600 but for which the owners are to receive site value of £35? Is not that shocking?

Mr. Greenwood: I shall look into any cases of hardship which hon. Members bring to my attention. I thought that I had already made clear that I am aware that hardship can be caused and I am looking into it.

Accommodation Agencies

Mr. Robert Davies: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps are taken to enforce the Accommodation Agencies Act, 1953, against accommodation agencies in

London which charge tenants of furnished lettings a week's rent for putting them in touch with their landlords.

Mr. MacColl: It is not an offence under the Act to provide that an incoming tenant should pay an agent's normal fee for arranging the letting of furnished accommodation.

Mr. Davies: Ought it not to be made an offence? Is it not intolerable that tenants should be charged for being put in touch with their landlords, and is not this contrary to the intention of the Accommodation Agencies Act?

Mr. MacColl: The object of the Act was to stop fees being extorted from people who got no service in return, whereas in the case raised by my hon. Friend there is a service performed in arranging the letting.

Tenancies (Allocation)

Mr. Hattersley: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) if, following his inquiries, he will state how many local authorities allocate municipal tenancies on the basis of points schemes;
(2) if, following his inquiries, he will state how many local authorities impose a residence qualification on the allocation of municipal tenancies.

Mr. Mellish: The inquiries made last year were limited to a small selection of local authorities with substantial multiple occupation problems and no comprehensive information is available.

Mr. Hattersley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the rules by which councils allocate their tenancies vary from area to area in an arbitrary and unjust fashion? Is it not up to his Ministry to find out what the systems are and impose some regularisation on the worst examples of the procedure?

Mr. Mellish: Outside London about three-fifths of the local authorities we approached had residential qualifications of one year or less. Inside London, most of the London boroughs, for example, have a rule that applicants should live five years in Greater London before an application can effectively be considered.


On the general argument about qualifications for the waiting list, my hon. Friend should bear in mind that in some of our big towns and cities which are concentrating on slum clearance and redevelopment, the waiting lists, by and large, are not of much value anyway.

Mr. Graham Page: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that the difficulty about the waiting lists is the secrecy maintained by local authorities? Is there any need for secrecy regarding the housing waiting lists and the points systems?

Mr. Mellish: That is not my experience. I find that local authorities generally do an extremely honourable job here. For some individual applicants on waiting lists, the medical background and so on must be kept secret. My own impression is that it is done in a very honourable and decent way.

Mrs. Braddock: Will my hon. Friend make inquiries from local authorities about whether they are meeting that request made by his Ministry to see that men discharged from the Forces are not put in the same position of having to reside in the place for two or three years before they can go on the waiting list? There are some local authorities which are not meeting that request.

Mr. Mellish: We sent a circular requesting local authorities to recognise that ex-Service men are in a special position, and we are desperately anxious that these people should be given a chance to qualify for housing before they are discharged. This is a two-way traffic. The Service authorities themselves must also help here by giving notification of those Service men who are to come out of the Forces some time before they do so. I agree that local authorities should co-operate and help here, and in the main they are doing that now.

Home Mortgage Facilities

Mr. Arnold Shaw: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now encourage local authorities to undertake an increase in their home mortgage facilities.

Mr. Greenwood: I shall shortly be discussing with the local authorities their arrangements for lending for next year.

Mr. Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the difficulties and hardship suffered particularly by young married couples in getting mortgages from local authorities since the local authorities, under Circular 24/66, are unable to make advances on new properties, and people are precluded from getting mortgages from building societies owing to the need for the husband to have a high income? Will my right hon. Friend now modify Circular 24/66?

Mr. Greenwood: It would be wiser to await the result of my discussions with the local authorities. I have no knowledge that abuse of the system is as widespread as my hon. Friend says, but the option mortgage scheme we announced yesterday will go a long way towards helping some of those to whom he referred.

Mr. Iremonger: Since I represent the politically sounder part of the borough, may I put two supplementary questions? First, is it not true that these moneys to be lent to prospective house purchasers are lent on the valuation and not the price paid for the property? Secondly, would not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, so long as his housing programme is a failure, lending inadequate funds to buy houses which are not there at inflated prices is a piece of cynical window-dressing?

Mr. Greenwood: The answer to the first part of that lengthy supplementary question is, "Yes". The reply to the second part is that perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read the Housing Subsidies Bill we published yesterday.

Land, Bromley

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what application he has received from the Greater London Council for permission to acquire land compulsorily in the London Borough of Bromley; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Mellish: None, Sir.

Mr. Hunt: If and when he receives such application, will the hon. Gentleman remind the G.L.C. that Bromley has a very long waiting list of its own and that the more imaginative and intensive use of land within the inner London area


would be a far more constructive solution to its problems than the kind of bluster and bullying that Bromley Council has had to face in recent weeks?

Mr. Mellish: I understand that there are to be further discussions between Bromley and the G.L.C. this month, and I should have thought that statements of the kind just made by the hon. Member would do more harm than good in advance of those discussions.

Mr. Lipton: Is it not a fact that the Tory-controlled London Borough of Bromley has shown itself to have a selfish, dog-in-the-manger attitude towards the general housing needs of London's population, showing that the council there lacks social conscience?

Mr. Mellish: One fact is clear. The problems of the inner London boroughs are so immense that they will need all the help they can get from Bromley or anywhere else.

Building Programmes and Completions

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what estimates he now makes, in view of his recent study of the matter, of the size of the housing programme in 1967, 1968, and 1969; and whether he still hopes to achieve 500,000 houses in 1970.

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his latest estimate of housing completions in England and Wales in 1966 and for the subsequent years to 1970.

Mr. Greenwood: I expect about 380,000 houses to be completed in Great Britain this year, of which around 37,000 will be in Scotland. There is no change in the target of 500,000. Progress, however, is subject to continuing review. Much will depend on performance in the private sector, which is less predictable and controllable than the public sector.

Mr. Allaun: Whilst I warmly welcome the Housing Subsidies Bill, which will be a big help, may I ask my right hon. Friend how he intends to reach the target when the programme remains stationary for three years at 380,000? Unlike the attitude of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, will my right hon. Friend press

in the current Cabinet discussions for more of the G.N.P. to be devoted to housing than to the sale of arms?

Mr. Greenwood: The latter part of that supplementary question raises wider issues. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that the number of houses built by the public sector has steadily increased over the last two years, and we must hope that the economic situation will permit equal progress in the private sector.

Mr. Allason: Has the right hon. Gentleman then departed from the announced decision in the National Plan to allot to housing a greater priority than it has had for many years past? Has he noticed that employment in the construction industry has dropped recently?

Mr. Greenwood: We continue to give very high priority to housing, and there is no intention to depart from that. This is shown by the number of allocations of houses in the public sector.

Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend indicate what discussions he has had with the Minister of Public Building and Works on the question of development or further development of industrialised building in order to speed up the whole process?

Mr. Greenwood: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with that point in answer to an earlier Question.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not clear that fewer houses will be completed this year than last year? If that is the result of the Government giving high priority to housing, will the right hon. Gentleman please apply totally different policies and try at least to get back to the rate of increase which existed under the Conservative Government?

Mr. Greenwood: There was no rate of increase in the production of houses in the public sector under the right hon. Gentleman's Administration. My reply refers to about 380,000 houses. The figure last year was 382,000, which was higher than the Conservative Government ever achieved.

Mr. Rippon: Do the Government really believe that under their Administration more and more people will go on needing council houses at subsidised rents? Is


it not part of their policy to see a general rise in the standard of living so that people can own their own houses? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Ministry's published figures show that next year private starts are likely to be down by 30,000? How does this affect his plans?

Mr. Greenwood: I would remind the Opposition that there are still 1 million slums and 2 million sub-standard houses and that the need for houses to rent will continue for a considerable period. I very much regret to see the satisfaction of right hon. and hon. Members opposite when they think that there is ground for believing that we are not going to succeed in housing as many people as we would like to do.

Mortgage Option Scheme

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now announce the date of the introduction of the mortgage option scheme; and when he estimates it will be operating.

Mr. Greenwood: The option mortgage scheme is provided for in Part II of the Housing Subsidies Bill introduced yesterday. A White Paper was published with the Bill describing the scheme. The proposal is that it will come into operation on 1st April, 1968.

Mr. Channon: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is disappointing that, after years of promises by Ministers, the scheme will not come into force until 1st April, 1968, which will be nearly four years after the Government took office?

Mr. Greenwood: Yes, it is extremely disappointing. The Bill is about 16 years too late.

Rents

Mr. Robert Davies: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what directives or advice he intends to give local housing authorities regarding rent increases during the period of severe price and wage restraint.

Mr. Frederic Harris: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he is taking to see that

rents are not increased during the period of severe restraint.

Mr. Greenwood: I would refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Member to paragraphs 19 and 20 of the White Paper, "Prices and Incomes Standstill: Period of Severe Restraint" published on 22nd November.

Mr. Davies: Is it not the case that while housing authorities are under an obligation to balance their housing revenue accounts annually, they have no option but to increase either rents or rates, or both, when facing a deficit? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, consider taking steps to relieve them of this obligation during the period of severe price and wage restraint?

Mr. Greenwood: That course would involve a substantial departure from the practice which has been pursued. It is a fact that local authorities are under this statutory obligation, but I think that when he studies the new Housing Bill my hon. Friend will agree with me that the help which we are to give will be of great assistance to local authorities in avoiding rent increases.

Mr. Harris: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that at a time when it is impossible for employees to get increases in salaries and wages, it is quite wicked in this period of severe restraint that they should have the hardship of meeting increased rents and rates? This is an intolerable burden.

Mr. Greenwood: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has carefully read the White Paper on Prices and Incomes in which we express the hope that local authorities will exercise the utmost economy and keep down both rents and rates, but I hope that when local authorities are faced with rent increases they will consider the desirability of rent rebate schemes, which will go a long way towards helping the citizens to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answers to these questions are totally unsatisfactory and give no hope whatsoever to those authorities who are forced to put up rents very largely because they are trying to follow the Government's policy and build more houses more quickly?

Mr. Greenwood: I am sorry that my hon. Friend regards the answers as unsatisfactory. He should remember that local authorities themselves have benefited from the wage freeze, and I do not think that he will find that local authorities share his disappointment with the provisions of the Bill published yesterday.

Mr. Harris: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mortgages

Mr. Murton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement on his discussions with the Building Societies Association regarding a Government guarantee for 100 per cent. mortgages.

Mr. Scott: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government on what date he proposes to introduce legislation to introduce a Government guarantee for 100 per cent. mortgages granted by the building societies, as announced by his predecessor on 1st March, 1966.

Mr. Greenwood: The Government's proposals are explained in Part II of the White Paper "Help towards Home Ownership" (Cmnd. 3163) published yesterday.

Mr. Murton: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, after this long delay and much deferred promise, it will lead to alarm, dismay and despondency of all those needy people—[Interruption.]—waiting for the 100 per cent. mortgage scheme for all these months to know that now it is not coming?

Mr. Greenwood: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I replied to an earlier Question from one of his hon. Friends, but there will be about 1 million people who will be delighted to know that after years and years of neglect help is in sight.

Mr. Scott: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea of when this pledge might be fulfilled?

Mr. Greenwood: If the hon. Gentleman will read the White Paper, he will find that it comes into operation on 1st April, 1968, and we anticipate that in the

first year of operation it will cost about £30 million.

Mr. Rippon: Can we have an absolutely firm assurance on this point, because we attach great importance to it?

Mr. Greenwood: I am sorry. I think that I misunderstood. In the general uproar I was not sure whether the hon. Gentleman had referred to the 100 per cent. scheme. This is something about which it is impossible to make firm decision at the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is perfectly reasonable. We have announced that the scheme as a whole will come into operation on 1st April, 1968, but the part which relates to the 100 per cent. mortgage will have to be put off until the economic situation permits. This decision has been reached by the Government in full consultation with all the lending agencies concerned.

Mr. Murton: I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to raise the matter on an early Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT STATISTICS

Mr. Higgins: asked the Prime Minister what improvements have taken place in Government statistics required for economic planning purposes since last April.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): A large number of chancres have been and are being made in key series relating to industrial output, labour, household expenditure, the balance of payments and in social statistics. Improvement of statistical information is, of course, a continuous process and a number of further changes are being considered.

Mr. Higgins: Would the Prime Minister agree that statistics showing the relationship between different industries are essential to planning? Will he explain why the House was assured last year by the then First Secretary that input-output tables reconciling the figures in the National Plan existed and would be published, whereas last week the present First Secretary said that it was


not worth producing such tables? Do they exist and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman have them placed in the Library?

The Prime Minister: A great deal of work was done on them. I must ask for notice about the publication of any table or series of tables. A lot of improvement has been made, but I share with the hon. Member the anxiety about some of these figures, particularly the Production Index, which is usually three to six months late and which often has to be revised, whether upwards or downwards, months after that.

Mr. Higgins: asked the Prime Minister when the review of Government statistics being carried out by the Director of the Oxford Institute of Economics and Statistics is likely to be completed; whether it will be published; and when the Government expects to implement it.

The Prime Minister: Shortly, Sir. Decisions about publication and implementation can only be taken when the Report has been received.

Mr. Higgins: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is very slow progress? Would he meanwhile take steps to increase the statistics available on redeployment?

The prime Minister: Yes. We are trying to improve the statistics over a much wider area than that and certainly on redeployment. Within the limits of what is possible a great improvement is taking place. Some figures have already been given to the House. With regard to Mr. Jackson's Report, I understand that he has been rather seriously ill just before the Report was about to be published. We very urgently want to see it and hope that he will be able to produce it shortly.

Dr. David Owen: asked the Prime Minister what improvements he intends to make in the effective rationalisation of Government statistics.

The Prime Minister: Departments are continually modifying their statistics to meet the needs of the Government and other users, and the whole field is kept under central review. If my hon. Friend has any particular point in mind, or suggestion to make, I would be happy to consider it.

Dr. Owen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some concern about regional statistics, where there is considerable overlap between Departments? Would he encourage Departments to adopt the economic sub-regions put out by the D.E.A.?

The Prime Minister: This is one of the things that Mr. Jackson was looking at. We are very anxious that the statistics required should not only be published on a regional basis but, as far as possible, especially industrially, should be collected on a regional basis, in the regions, on a comparable basis so that we shall have regional as well as national figures on a comparable basis.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is the Prime Minister aware that the most urgent measure of rationalisation of Government statistics is the publication, as a prominent feature of the statistics, of their statistical limits of error, so that less misconstruction and misinterpretation will be placed upon figures, which simply cannot carry them?

The Prime Minister: Yes. Over the years there has grown up a volume of considerable thickness, with all the limitations. The bases of calculation are printed at regular intervals, although I think that this would not stop some hon. Members from drawing the wrong conclusions from the figures.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA (GOVERNOR)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of the Government to support financially the duties carried out by the Governor of Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister: The Governor has preferred to carry out his duties during this difficult year without assistance from us. I am sure that the House would have very readily approved such assistance if the Governor had wished it.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Prime Minister aware of the admiration felt on this side of the House for the personal courage of the Governor in these very trying days? In view of reports about the financial difficulties of the Governor, can anything be done to ease his position in this period?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend has expressed the feeling of the whole House in the tributes which he has paid to the Governor. As for statements about financial difficulties, I would not underrate the very great help of a great number of loyal Rhodesians who have supported and still support the Governor wholeheartedly. If he had wished assistance from us, we would have been most ready to give it and I am sure that the House would have agreed.

Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that financial difficulties will probably be the least of the Governor's troubles? Has he in mind any plans to assist him in letting the people of Rhodesia know of the circumstances of my right hon. Friend's offer and the negotiations, and what can be done to bring them to appreciate——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is wide of the original Question.

The Prime Minister: I hope that my right hon. Friend is wrong in what he said about financial difficulties being the least of the worries. I was encouraged a fortnight ago when Mr. Smith started referring to him as "the Governor", as he did throughout the time of this last weekend, and disheartened when I saw a statement from the régime this morning referring to him as "a governor", with a small "g". It may be only a small thing, but I think that it is regrettable.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNIVERSITY CLINICAL TEACHERS

Mr. Braine: asked the Prime Minister if he will transfer responsibility for the recruitment and remuneration of university clinical teachers from the Department of Education and Science to the Ministry of Health.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Braine: In view of the conflict between the Minister of Health, who rightly wants to see medical schools expanded, and the Secretary of State for Education and Science, whose attitude over a pay anomaly has led half the clinical teachers to say that they may well leave the medical schools, may I ask whether the Prime Minister will intervene and use his good offices to resolve a ridiculous situation which is so highly

damaging to medical education in this country?

The Prime Minister: Whether they should be the responsibility of one Department or another has always been a difficult problem under successive Governments. The view has been that they should be regarded as part of the universities rather than in the other direction. The whole issue is raised in the recent White Paper and my right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to announce a decision shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister whether he will in due course visit the Commonwealth countries most likely to be adversely affected by Great Britain joining the Common Market.

The Prime Minister: We are in close touch with other Commonwealth Governments and will remain so throughout, either by correspondence or by personal visits, as may suit the various Governments concerned. But the purpose of our forthcoming exploratory discussions with the Heads of Government of the European Economic Community is of course to establish whether or not conditions exist for fruitful negotiations.

Mr. Marten: Once the Prime Minister has finished those visits to the Heads of Government of the Community and established whether essential Commonwealth interests can be safeguarded, would he at that point, if necessary, see the Commonwealth Prime Ministers before negotiating entry?

The Prime Minister: That is a very reasonable suggestion, that we should at any rate see those who are most intimately concerned. It does not affect the whole Commonwealth, but it may well be that, as a result of my right hon. Friend's considerations with the Governments, some or all of them might have been seen before we complete the round of meetings.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will issue instructions to all the appropriate Government Departments to supply adequate factual information on the implications of joining the European Economic Community.

The Prime Minister: Government Departments are already glad to answer factual inquiries to the best of their ability. If my hon. Friend has any points in mind on which he would like information, perhaps he would let me know.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are so many Departments involved in this that it is very difficult to get a collective view in a convenient form? Would not he consider either asking each Department to publish its own separate White Paper on the implications, or, better still, I think, from the point of view of the House, asking the Government to produce a comprehensive pamphlet on the implications for each Department?

The Prime Minister: This is very difficult, because until we know exactly what the terms and conditions are likely to be it is extremely difficult to make any calculation. I hazarded one calculation about the effect on our balance of payments and cost of living of the common agricultural I policy, but on very, very rigid assumptions about the present situation. It is very difficult indeed to have a whole series of separate pamphlets from different Departments, but we shall give as much information as we can if we are told what it is my hon. Friend wants supplied.

Mr. Turton: There would be no difficulty in setting out in a White Paper all the relevant advantages and disadvantages at the present time. It would be very valuable to the country to have one as soon as possible.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. It was shown in our two-day debate that, in assessing the advantages and disadvantages, both sides rely very much more on qualitative than quantitative factors. I do not know any hon. Member, whatever view he takes, who does not rely on his own judgment, which cannot be proved by statistics, on the effect of the wider scale of the market. Whether they are those who believe in the cold douche theory, or those who believe that there will be a flood of imports, hon. Members are forming their own views on the qualitative aspect.

Mr. Bellenger: Has my right hon. Friend seen a statement on agriculture's position in relation to the Common Mar-

ket? It would be impossible to test the accuracy of such statements which may affect our constituents unless we have access to the facts. That is what I gather is being asked of the Prime Minister—to publish some of the facts on which we can assess the value of these things.

The Prime Minister: I am aware of that publication. I take it that my right hon. Friend is referring to the publication of the National Farmers' Union, which has very considerable access to facts and a very fine statistical department. But there are many other industries concerned. Some industries have put out their estimates. Many organisations exist on both sides of the controversy doing very valuable education propaganda. As the House knows, the C.B.I., which has been into this very thoroughly and has great access to industrial information, will be presenting its own report, I think later this month.

Mr. Kershaw: Does the Prime Minister realise that the implications of his first supplementary answer were that he would insist on an alteration of the agricultural arrangements if we join the Common Market? Does he realise the full implications of that policy?

The Prime Minister: We discussed the question of agricultural policy in the two-day debate. It does not arise from my first supplementary answer which referred to the cost to our balance of payments and the cost of living on present prices. It may well be that prices in the Community will change and they may fall. It is a fairly wide expectation that world prices will rise during that period. If this is so, the estimates which I gave of the cost on both counts will have been exaggerated.

Mr. Hooson: Is there not an overwhelming case for the publication of a White Paper on the agricultural implications of joining the Common Market? Representing, as I do, an agricultural constituency, I can say that there is very much controversy in agricultural circles as to the precise effects of joining the Common Market and accepting its present agricultural policy.

The Prime Minister: I say this not in a critical sense, but that has not stopped the hon. and learned Gentleman


from expressing a very strong view that it would be good for agriculture. He makes many speeches on that. That is what I meant when I said that hon. Members have had to rely and must rely much more on their assessment of the situation from talking to practical men than on any statistical estimate, which could be very remote from the facts.
On the question of agriculture, as on the question of industry, when we have had time to study both the N.F.U. document and the C.B.I. document we shall consider whether any further information would be useful.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to appoint the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Board of the National Economic Development Council.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the Prime Minister attach no weight to the representations of the C.B.I. that the Chancellor should have a permanent seat on the Council, and is not the expectation that members of the Council can profitably discuss economic affairs without the Minister responsible for its fiscal aspects an illusion worthy of the dream world of Walter Mitty?

The Prime Minister: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his original phraseology. It is not that I attach no weight to the representations. I have discussed this question with representatives of the C.B.I. There is a strong team of four economic Ministers on the Council and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is and always has been ready to attend whenever the matter under discussion is of particular concern to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGICAL COMMUNITY

Mr. David Howell: asked the Prime Minister what steps he will now take to follow up his proposal for a European technological community.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will now take action to

implement his plan for a technological community in Europe.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and I will be seeking the views of other Governments during our forthcoming visits to Common Market countries on how best our community of interest in technological progress can most effectively be fostered.

Mr. Howell: Does not the idea of a technological community, which the Prime Minister has picked up, go rather further than he has so far suggested? Does not such a community mean a common public policy by the Governments concerned and does not this involve a degree of political integration? Would he accept that?

The Prime Minister: It requires just as much political integration as is required for the existence and fulfilment of the present three communities. We shall be most anxious to discuss our suggestion of a fourth technological community at these talks. If the Governments concerned feel that it could be done in a different way—the Italian Government have already made suggestions, perhaps not as good as this one—we shall be glad to discuss it with them.

Mr. Dalyell: In these visits would the Prime Minister think it right for him to support the British Nuclear Export Executive and to raise at the highest level the question of European purchase of British reactors before such time as the French and the Belgians become committed to American reactors?

The Prime Minister: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this and this is one of the important things that we could do. With this, as with computers—this is a point I made in Paris 18 months ago—there is a danger that certain of our European neighbours will become too much dependent upon the United States exports and techniques. This would help to build up a rather more independent technique in Europe.

Mr. Grimond: Does the Prime Minister intend this community to be in addition to the existing communities, including Euratom, and since he has presumably worked out the details of the proposals, would he publish them in a White Paper?

The Prime Minister: It was felt that the right thing was to discuss all of these ideas with the Heads of Governments of the Six. We have some ideas and shall put them forward in those talks. After that, we shall be glad to report to the House.

Mr. Sandys: Does the Prime Minister realise that his proposal has been very warmly welcomed on the Continent and has aroused great interest? Is he aware that it is regarded as evidence of the British Government's interest in trying to develop co-operation within the Community, and will he seriously consider the possibility, at some later date, of publishing some detailed thoughts on this subject?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. The suggestion has been welcomed as evidence of our serious intention and it was put forward with that very much in mind. We shall certainly consider, at the appropriate time, saying more about it to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (GUILDHALL SPEECH)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at the Guildhall on 14th November on investment.

The Prime Minister: I have already done so, Sir.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the Prime Minister aware that I am grateful to him for responding, even belatedly, to my request? On the point of investments, would he not agree that it is not fainthearted of British industry at this time to cut back investment when its return on existing investment is being curtailed by the Government? Would he not further agree that it has no choice and that this is not going to be changed by a lot of after-dinner platitudes by himself or 5 per cent. extra on the dole from the President of the Board of Trade?

The Prime Minister: The problem here is that some firms have been getting into an over-cautious attitude, not because of any calculation or extrapolation of their own earning power, their profit re-

cord or the market for their products, but because they have thought that, as other firms have been affected, they may be too, and so they are holding back. That is what I meant in this speech. I said at the same time that an announcement would be made during the debate on the positive incentives. This was done and I thought that the House, by a very considerable majority, approved the policy in this respect.

Mr. Heath: Would the Prime Minister now ensure that there is an official statement about the level of Government investment in 1967–68? Is he aware that already the Government are asking private industry to be forthcoming about the level of investment for next year, but we have heard absolutely nothing from the Government and no figures were given during the debate last week? Could the Prime Minister ensure that this is done?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider that. I was not quite sure if the right hon. Gentleman was making the point that he would like to see Government investment increase or decrease during that period. I was not sure whether he wanted it to increase in order to help maintain the total level of investment in the country or whether he wanted it to decrease, since last week he was complaining about the level of Government expenditure. If he will tell me which it is, I will do my best to see that he receives an answer.

Mr. Heath: I am sorry if the Prime Minister misunderstood my question. I asked whether the Government will merely publish a statement about their investment intentions for 1967–68. The National Institute has called for this because there was, until the National Plan, an annual publication in the autumn of the level of Government investment. Now we have neither the National Plan nor the White Paper. Will the Prime Minister state what the Government are going to do?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I have said that I will consider the right hon. Gentleman's request as to whether and how quickly we can get out the figures he wants. I should still be interested to know whether he wants investment to go up or down.

SECURITY COMMISSION

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
On 10th May, 1965, I told the House of a change in our procedures regarding the Security Commission whereby from then on a reference to the Security Commission might be made as soon as the Government were satisfied, or had good reason to believe, that a breach of security had occurred in the public service whether or not the matter was one which was to come before the courts; and that when a reference to the Commission related to a matter which was the subject of criminal proceedings before the courts, no public announcement of the reference to the Commission would be made until it was appropriate to make a statement.
In accordance with these new procedures, and after informing the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I asked the Security Commission, on 22nd July, to investigate and report upon the circumstances in which Squadron Leader Peter John Reen had been found to hold at his home classified documents to which he had official access before he retired from public service in 1961, and upon any related failure of departmental security arrangements or neglect of duty; and, in the light of the investigation, to advise whether any change in security arrangements was necessary or desirable.
Squadron Leader Reen was charged, under Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, with the unauthorised retention of official documents and was convicted at Bow Street on 17th November. I should make it clear that these were the only charges preferred against Squadron Leader Reen.
Previously, the Security Commission had reported that, in relation to the matter under investigation, there had been no failure of departmental security procedures or neglect of duty. Copies of its report, from which certain details have been omitted in the interest of national security with the agreement of the Commission, will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon.
The Security Commission made one recommendation. It considered that the procedure for requiring civil servants and members of the Armed Forces to return

all official documents made or acquired by them on leaving the Service or on transfer should be further improved. The Government have accepted that this should be done and a revised procedure has been introduced.

Mr. Heath: I thank the Prime Minister for going through the customary consultation and then making his statement to the House on a security matter.
I should like to ask two questions. First, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in this case no question of espionage was involved? Secondly, will the recommendation of the Commission that, on changing any post or appointment, anyone who had possession of documents should not only hand them in and so carry out the recommendation which the Prime Minister has accepted, but should also sign a statement to that effect, be implemented?

The Prime Minister: On the first question, I am certainly very happy to confirm that there was no suggestion whatever of espionage or any act disloyal to the country. The charge on which Squadron Leader Reen was convicted was a serious technical offence, but it carried with it no other implications whatsoever.
On the second question, as I have told the right hon. Gentleman, an improvement has been introduced. It does not go quite as far as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, but I should be glad to keep in touch with him about it when the arrangements have been finalised.

Mr. Lubbock: Without having read the Report I do not know whether this is relevant to this case, but can the Prime Minister say whether he has yet considered the Report of the inquiry into the workings of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, which recommended that if the power to summon witnesses who withhold the production of documents was necessary for the Security Commission separate legislation should be established for that purpose? In the light of experience so far, does the right hon. Gentleman think such power is necessary, and if so, will such legislation be introduced?

The Prime Minister: I am not yet in a position to make a statement about the


part of the Royal Commission's recommendation relating to the Security Commission. On the experience we have had so far—it might be quite different with a subsequent reference—there has not been any requirement or any advantage in giving extra powers to the Security Commission. It has had no difficulty in getting all the facts required. It knew that if it could not get all the facts, it could apply for extended power.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short announcement about business.
Following the statement by my right hon. Friend yesterday, the business for Wednesday and Thursday has been rearranged to allow on those two days, of which Thursday will be Supply [6th Allotted Day], a debate on Rhodesia.

Mr. Heath: I am sure that it is in accordance with the wish of the House that we should have this two-day debate on Rhodesia. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are some right hon. and hon. Members who would have preferred to have longer to consider the Government White Paper and the Prime Minister's statement, but in view of what the Government regard as the urgent necessity of having the debate at once we accept that it should be on Wednesday and Thursday.
Can the right hon. Gentleman still assure the House that his undertaking that no action will be taken by the Government until after the debate will be carried out? As the debate is being held at the first and earliest opportunity, surely it is possible for the Foreign Secretary to wait until the House has debated the matter and expressed its view, of which the Government can then take account before action is taken in the Security Council.

Mr. Crossman: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said. What I can tell him is that no irrevocable commitment will be undertaken. That is what we have emphasised all the way through. We all appreciate that part of the negotiations was bringing Mr. Smith

right up to the deadline. There is no doubt that we got the little movement which we did get by doing so. However, we have paid the price in the sense that we have had to have out debate right up against the deadline at the same time. But I can give an assurance that no irrevocable commitment will be undertaken by the Government before the debate is completed.

Mr. Heath: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by the expression "up against the deadline"? The undertaking in the White Paper and in the Commonwealth communiqué refers to action in the Security Council before the end of the year. Therefore, there are still another three weeks to go, and the Security Council can meet at 24 hours' notice or even shorter. Why, then, can the Foreign Secretary not wait to listen to the debate for even 48 hours before taking action?

Mr. Crossman: I gave no kind of assurance that the Foreign Secretary would not fly to New York before the debate started. What I said was that the Government would not take action until the debate had been completed. That is true.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the deadline. It was clear, as my right hon. Friend said, that one of the things that we were seeking to do was to impress upon Mr. Smith the urgency of reaching a decision against that deadline. All this could be discussed during the two-day debate.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government will take no irrevocable action, does that mean that the Foreign Secretary will not lay out a programme of mandatory sanctions until after the debate in this House?

Mr. Crossman: What I mean, clearly, is that if we want to retain control of events on the other side of the Atlantic the Foreign Secretary has to fly today.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not clear that what the Conservative Opposition are trying to do is delay indefinitely any action being taken?

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: In view of the very great importance of today's debate, and the wish of most hon. Members to listen to it, will the Leader of


the House do what he can to make sure that no Standing Committees are sitting upstairs, bearing in mind, in particular, the problems of the 30 hon. Members who are exiled in Committee Room 10?

Mr. Crossman: I agree about the importance of this debate. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of making good progress on Committees upstairs.

Mr. Sandys: Is this not another example of the Government's contempt for Parliament?

Mr. Crossman: I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he believes that, he will believe anything

Mr. Barber: I would like to press the right hon. Gentleman in respect of Standing Committee D upstairs, which is considering the Iron and Steel Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that it is intolerable that 30 hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick), who has just joined us, will have no opportunity of speaking at all in this debate? Will the right hon. Gentleman also not recognise something much more serious, which is that if it should be necessary, at the end of the two-day debate, to reach a decision, 30 hon. Members will not even have heard any of the arguments? Is that not making a mockery of Parliament?

Mr. Crossman: I must say that that, coming from the right hon. Gentleman who is largely responsible for the fact

that the Bill is not being reported out of Committee, is slightly comic.

Mr. Grimond: Could the Leader of the House refresh our memories? Was there not an opportunity to debate the possibilities and the effect of sanctions quite recently on Orders in this House?

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He is quite correct in his recollection.

Mr. Heath: Mr. Heath rose——

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I deprecate hon. Members shouting across the floor at the tops of their voices?

Mr. Heath: As the Leader of the House addressed a personal appeal to the House on many occasions on his own behalf and on behalf of the whole Government not to debate sanctions or Rhodesia on those Orders, ought he not at least to have the decency to say that he asked the House not to?

Mr. Crossman: That is perfectly true, but I was asked whether the opportunity, was there—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] As I said at the same time, it is perfectly true that we both agreed through the usual channels that it was wiser not to, but the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked whether the opportunity was not there. The answer is, yes, it was there.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Elysian Morgan.

NATIONAL WATER BOARD FOR WALES

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a National Water Board for Wales.
Every community, from the earliest times onwards, has probably been convinced of the significance of water in relation to its development. The ancients often worshipped it, and modern societies are assiduous in their search for more plentiful supplies. The demands of industry for water are ever increasing. A ton of steel uses about 250,000 gallons of water in the process of its production. In the domestic and agricultural fields and in the case of power stations and hydro-electricity plants, a rapidly growing demand for water is the hallmark of modern growth.
I envisage that there may well be developments in the not too distant future dedicated to bringing the conservation and distribution of water into public ownership. The concept of a Water Board for Wales is in no way repugnant to such a principle. Since 1964, the Labour Party has incorporated the establishment of Water Board for Wales in its official policy. I feel sure that there is a broad consensus of opinion in Wales which would welcome the creation of such a Board.
If I may indulge in an Irishism, water is probably the most inflammable topic in Wales today. In relation to water in Wales, there are some classic and monumental inconsistencies. In central Wales, about 95 per cent. of the water conserved belongs to authorities in England yet, in the neighbouring water zone of South-East Wales, where about half the population of Wales lives, it is calculated that there will be a shortage of about 175 million gallons per day by 1990. There are areas which suffer drought in summer and severe flooding in winter. There are localities where water rates are high, drainage rates inequitable and from whence tens of millions of gallons of water flow daily to England. The general rates paid in respect of water installations are often scant recompense in relation to the income derived from such water. In any event, a diminution in equalisation

grant abrogates substantially the benefit derived from such rate payments.
This feeling of anomaly reached its peak some years ago with the drowning of the Tryweryn Valley, in Merionethshire, following a debate in this House when all Welsh Members either voted against the acquisition or abstained.
On 17th May last the Prime Minister made a statement in the House concerning Welsh water resources. The general effect of that statement is that the Secretary of State for Wales has a final veto over the development of Welsh water resources by any outside body. Whilst this statement was welcomed in Wales, it was felt by many that such a negative authority should be accompanied by positive power to develop in a comprehensive way the water resources of Wales for the greater benefit and reward of its people.
Such a view has been lucidly enunciated in the Report of the Welsh Advisory Committee on Water Resources in 1961. It is Cmnd 1331, and paragraph 78 says:
… it is important that development of water resources should be conceived as a whole and that the legitimate interests of Wales should be safeguarded. Moreover, one must recognise that rural areas where large reservoirs have been sited have not always received adequate returns. There is a strong case for a system whereby a material benefit would be received by such areas in addition to the extra revenue they receive in the form of rate income.
In the Measure which I am proposing the main provisions are as follows: first, that there be established a corporate Water Board for Wales, comprising of eight members, each to be appointed by the Secretary of State for Wales;
secondly, that this Board should be vested with wide powers which will include, inter alia, the power to designate Welsh water boundaries. At the moment, five river authorities straddle the Welsh—English border. This is due to the fact that the Dee, the Severn, the Wye and other rivers have the inconsiderate propensity of meandering into England. I feel confident, however, that it is not beyond the wit of man to determine a reasonable division, and where appropriate a share of jurisdictions in this connection. The river authorities of Northern England end abruptly at the Scottish border, despite the fact that the


Tweed, the Esk, and Lidell Water, do not fastidiously respect that boundary.
The Bill would also vest the Board with the right to charge a levy for water which is impounded in Wales by authorities outside Wales. The rate of levy would be determined by the Secretary of State for Wales following consultations between the Welsh Office and the respective Ministries of Housing of Local Government and Land and Natural Resources. The Board would then be empowered to use the proceeds of this levy for the benefit of the general catchment area in a variety of ways. It could, where and when it so wished, use the agency of the appropriate local authorities. This fund could be utilised for the fostering of land drainage, the subsidising of water rates and drainage rates, the abatement of flooding, the reclamation of bog land, and particularly for the general economic development of the area.
The Board would be given full authority over all Welsh water resources, and it would be responsible for the equitable sharing of those resources between one authority and another in Wales. The desperate scramble which might otherwise have ensued amongst certain authorities would, therefore, be avoided. The distribution of water in Wales would remain the prerogative of the existing municipal and other undertakings.
The Bill would be consistent with, and complementary to the growing recognition by the Government of Wales as a distinct

national entity. Its provisions would not only promote the interests of Wales, vis-à-vis external authorities, but would also, I trust, inspire and initiate the rational and comprehensive development of Welsh water resources, thus fostering growth within Wales.
It is, I submit, a Measure which will enable the Welsh people to look on water not as heretofore, as a source of severe natural problems and bitter human relationships, but as an asset which would be developed for the substantial benefit of Wales and her neighbour alike.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Elystan Morgan, Mr. William Edwards, Mr. J. Idwal Jones, Mr. Donald Coleman, Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies, Mr. S. O. Davies, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Arthur Probert, Mr. Gwilym Roberts, Mr. Ronald Moyle, Mr. Arthur Pearson, and Mr. Desmond Donnelly.

NATIONAL WATER BOARD FOR WALES

Bill to establish a National Water Board for Wales, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 28th April, and to be printed. [Bill 147]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

3.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): I realise only too well that in so far as external affairs are concerned hon. Members are deeply preoccupied at the moment with the question of Rhodesia. As the House knows, I am very shortly to leave for New York, for reasons which were given earlier today, to present the British case at the United Nations. I should, therefore, like to take this opportunity of apologising to the House for the fact that this will mean that I shall miss most of to-day's debate, but I am sure that the House will understand that that is no reason for thinking that I wish to do the House a discourtesy.
Tomorrow, the House will be debating the whole issue of Rhodesia, but Rhodesia is not the only problem in the world, and it is not, I suggest, inappropriate that before starting the debate on Rhodesia the House should turn its mind today to a general review of foreign affairs. We have recently debated a number of particular matters of special importance in the international scene, but it is five months since the House had a general debate on the scene as a whole.
It is obviously not possible, and I shall not try, to consider, in the course of one speech, every major problem on the international scene. Some, like Gibraltar, we have recently debated very fully in the House. Others, particularly in the Middle East, are perhaps not best served at this moment by an analysis here. I want to start, therefore, by considering briefly the fundamentals of our foreign policy as I see them. This, I hope, will give focus and perspective to the particular issues with which we are concerned at the moment.
The basic question, what is the aim of our foreign policy, was, I think, well answered some days ago in another place by a very distinguished former head of the Foreign Office, when he said that the aim was
peace for its own sake and law and order to enable us to trade".
But the quest for world peace is the hardest of all pursuits. A hundred years ago we could impose a pax Britannica. We could pursue inde-

pendently the comparatively simple aims of ensuring that our trade routes were secured, and that the mainland of Europe was not dominated by any one Power. But today the technological revolution, and the development of the industrial power of the United States and the Soviet Union have totally altered the relationships between nations. Therefore, in this quest for peace we have to learn that we are, and that we must be, interdependent.
That is not the same as denying our own strength. Of course, whatever policies we pursue, whether in the United Nations, or in our alliances, or in any other groupings of which we may become members, our ability to pursue them effectively must depend to a large extent on the economic strength that we have here in Britain.
But whatever the strength of any one nation, in a very real sense all the nations of the world are interdependent. The problems of famine, disease and illiteracy, just as much as the pursuit of peace itself, are world problems, which the world as a whole must tackle. Our ideal, and it is a hard, practical, and I believe attainable ideal, must, therefore, be the creation of an effective world authority.
I said at the General Assembly of the United Nations, when I was there a short while ago, and I have said it in this House, and perhaps I might repeat it, that it is my view, and the Government's view, that the United Nations is not just something to be preached, but something to be practised. Those who believe in it, or say they believe in it, must consistently set the example.
Let me straight away use this occasion to pay tribute to U Thant, who has agreed to continue to shoulder the immense burden of the office of Secretary-General of the United Nations. The world owes him an enormous debt of gratitude for carrying on. I understand very clearly the difficulties with which he is faced. When I was in New York he was kind enough to talk to me very frankly about other difficulties of his own. The difficulties with which he is faced in that office arise partly from the lack of authority of the United Nations, partly from the lack of provision, both financial and logistical, to back it up, and also,


in part, by the unwillingness of nations to be guided by its decisions.
Our own policy is clear: we will back it up; we will be guided by its decisions. Only by accepting that and declaring it, step by step, can the real authority of the United Nations be created.
I want to step aside now from the general pattern of my speech to introduce something new. It is in this spirit of co-operation with the United Nations that we are entering upon the final preparations for South Arabia's independence, which has been promised by 1968. I am glad to say that within the last few days my noble Friend, Lord Caradon, has succeeded in securing in New York agreement on the terms on which a United Nations special mission should visit South Arabia. The purpose of the mission will be to recommend practical steps for the implementation of the United Nations resolution on South Arabia which we, as a country, have already accepted.
We look to the United Nations mission to help us aid the federal government in preparing the way for independence. Our aim is to leave behind a stable and orderly country. At the moment, the main obstacle to this is the senseless and indiscriminate terrorism prevailing in Aden. It is senseless because we have already undertaken to withdraw from the base on the achievement of independence, and it is indiscriminate because it has already killed and wounded more Arabs than British. I again appeal to those responsible for this destructive policy to bring it to an end.
The House will know that Mr. Roderic Bowen has submitted to me his report of the investigation that I asked him to make into the procedures for the arrest, interrogation and detention of terrorist suspects in Aden. I have discussed the report fully with my colleagues here and with the High Commission, and have decided that the report will be published in full. I shall also wish to make a full statement to the House on the actions that we are taking. Unfortunately, for reasons of which the House will be aware, my immediate visit to New York today and the meeting next week make it physically impossible for me to make it, as I would have liked to do, in the im-

mediate future, but the statement will be made and the report will be published before the House rises for the Christmas Recess.
Despite all that I have said about our work for and aim for a world authority, we must face one unpalatable fact, namely, that world peace today is kept by a balance of power. In this state of affairs we must work effectively through our alliances, and it is the North Atlantic Alliance which ensures the security of this country. Our commitment to N.A.T.O. has been emphasised on many occasions in the House. It remains as firm today as ever. I would not attempt to minimise the difficulties with which the alliance has been faced as a result of the French initiatives earlier this year; they have been very grave indeed. But in all that has happened since then the unity of the 14 has been a consistent and heartening feature, and we have taken a leading part in ensuring the continued effectiveness of the alliance.
The 14 have faced squarely the problems which the French actions have posed for them, and have taken the necessary decisions quickly and effectively. Most recently we have agreed on the move of the Council to Brussels, which was one of the hardest and most far-reaching decisions that we had to take. I want to make it clear that in all that has been done neither we nor other members of the 14 have in any way sought to act against France. We ourselves have, throughout this century, regarded France as a most important partner in many important undertakings, and we still hold that view. But we have been active in our efforts to keep N.A.T.O. strong and active during this period, because it represents for us the up-to-date and progressive way of conducting international relations whether in terms of politics or defence. It transcends narrow, individual nationalism. It enables countries of a similar kind to share each other's confidential thinking and it also enables them, while defending themselves against a possible menace, to move forward together towards the more secure, more peaceful and more united Europe that we all wish to see.
We ourselves are faced at this moment with a particular problem within the alliance, arising from the foreign exchange costs of our Forces in Germany. The


facts, broadly, are that these Forces cost us, in foreign exchange, about £94 million a year. The most recent German offer of an offset contribution is £31½ million a year. The Germans, however, have said that they hope to improve on this offer, but the resulting gap imposes a very great strain on our economy and must be closed. Let there be no doubt that we are determined to play our full part in the defence of the free world, but we cannot—nor has anyone the right to expect us to—shoulder a defence burden of such an order that our economic health is gravely damaged. In the long run our whole effort in defence must depend upon the soundness of our economy. We must, therefore, be careful that the right balance is struck.
This problem is to some extent shared by the United States, and it is a matter of the greatest concern to Germany. That is why we have been engaged since 20th October in tripartite discussions on this subject. Inter-related with this particular question is the general question of force levels, and inevitably the tripartite discussions have come to concern themselves with this. These levels must not be determined by financial criteria alone. They cannot be considered in isolation from the whole strategic situation and assessment. These issues of strategy are the concern of the whole North Atlantic Alliance.
I take the opportunity of emphasising that nothing that we are doing in the tripartite discussions seeks to pre-empt decisions which the alliance as a whole must properly take. The three Governments have been at pains to ensure that N.A.T.O. has been kept fully informed of the progress of the discussions. The Secretary-General of N.A.T.O., Signor Brosio, or his representative, has been attending the discussions, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been to Paris to give an interim account to the Permanent North Atlantic Council there. A full report on progress that we have made so far will be given to the Council for consideration at the Ministerial meeting which I shall be attending next week.
Whatever may be the outcome of the discussions, I want to assure the House that we shall proceed at all stages in complete accordance with our obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty and, the revised Brussels Treaty.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend clarify one point? In the event of agreement not being reached and we ourselves carrying through the procedures and finding objection on the part of the signatories to the agreement, what will be our position in relation to these troops?

Mr. Brown: At the moment, we have obligations imposed upon us by the treaties, as a member of the alliance and a signatory of the treaties. We shall carry those through. The situation at the end of the day will fall to be considered when we know what it is. My hon. Friend's point is wholly hypothetical. There is no reason to think that we shall not be able to achieve what we want in one way or another, but we want our allies to understand that we shall do that in conformity with our obligations.
The strengthening of the alliance can be served in many ways, but none can be more important than the creation of a strong and a wider Europe. Such a Europe would bring to the alliance a greater strength, a greater share in the responsibilities of the alliance as a whole, and a more solid base of power on this side of the Atlantic.
There are many ways in which the initiative of this Government concerning our entry of the European Economic Community can be seen, but this strengthening of the whole Atlantic concept is one of the most important. The House very fully debated last month the question of our initiative about possible entry of the E.E.C. and I will not go over the same ground again. I believe that that debate, which I thought was noteworthy, marked an initiative of real significance for this country and Europe. To those of us to whom the ideal of European unity is one worthy of our greatest efforts, this great step carries with it the hopes of high achievement.
The House will remember that the first stage in the programme outlined then by my right hon. Friend was a conference of Heads of Governments of the E.F.T.A. countries. The purpose of that conference was to discuss the problems involved in moves by E.F.T.A. countries to join the E.E.C. This conference met yesterday in London. Before it, as it has been since the start of E.F.T.A., was the


aim—one of the two main aims of the association—of the greater economic integration of Europe. To this aim, E.F.T.A. itself has already committed its own outstanding success—a free market of nearly 100 million people by the end of this year, far beyond the reasonable hopes of the most enthusiastic when we started.
However, beyond that market there is the prospect of the European market of nearly 300 million people, the combined markets of the E.E.C. and E.F.T.A. That would indeed be a strong basis for all our economies, a basis from which the unity of Europe could grow yet further. Against this background, the conference yesterday endorsed wholeheartedly the British initiative for determining whether the conditions are right for negotiating entry of the E.E.C. All countries, whether neutral or aligned, whether rich or not so rich, alike saw our initiative as carrying with it the hope of a further step towards the unity which we all desire, a unity in which all E.F.T.A. countries can participate in an appropriate manner. As we move forward, we will, of course, continue fully to consult our E.F.T.A. partners.
The next stage is now the discussions which the Prime Minister and I will be having with each of the Heads of Government of the Six. We will start on these visits encouraged not only by the E.F.T.A. conference, but also by the reactions of the E.E.C. countries to our purpose. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the first of our visits will be to Rome on 16th and 17th January and the second to Paris on 24th and 25th January. We are in touch with the other Governments of the Six about our visits to their capitals and the programme is taking shape very satisfactorily.
Europe does not——

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in addition to the visits to the six capitals, he and the Prime Minister will make a point of visiting the High Commission in Brussels itself and seeing Professor Hallstein, as well as the Governments?

Mr. Brown: I am certain that there will be a meeting between Professor Hall-

stein and ourselves at some point in these negotiations.
As I have said before, Europe does not finish at the Elbe. Neither can our hopes for European co-operation end there. The countries of Eastern Europe are evolving. There is a change of political climate in Europe, and we, by reacting constructively to this new situation, are helping the process forward. I think that that needs to be emphasised. This process can lead to nothing less than the breaking-down of the barriers of the cold war.
To this evolution we in the West must react and are reacting constructively. We are doing this in N.A.T.O. The alliance is concerned not just with defence and deterrence but with détente. It is not stuck in the rut of the cold war adopting out-of-date policies irrelevant to the times. It has its defensive functions and they remain of great importance, but it exists, equally, to further understanding between East and West. We are doing this in our own bilateral diplomacy: by increased trade and by increased exchanges in science, culture, and education. We are doing this in our own initiative for a declaration on a code of conduct to which all nations of East and West will be able to subscribe. And we are doing this in the bilateral high-level exchanges between East and West which the present Government have pursued consistently ever since they came to office.
But amongst the many and complex problems that divide East from West in Europe, none is greater in any consideration of the future stability of this Continent than the division of Germany. I know the fears which some countries and many people feel about Germany. In the light of the tragic history of the last half century this is understandable. But I profoundly believe that these are not sound feelings on which sensible policies can be based.
The Germany of today—this needs saying if we are to get recent developments into true perspective—is a Germany in which public opinion in the great majority backs its genuinely democratic and internationalist leaders.
Here, I welcome the new German Government and, in particular, the new Foreign Minister, a very old friend of many of us here, who has a very courageous and distinguished past. I should like


to say how much I look forward to working with him in his new Government.
The Germany of today does not stand for aggressive and resurgent nationalism, but it accepts and desires to be a part of larger European and international groupings. No realistic assessment of her position can fail to show her that in any European war her position in the centre would lead to her complete destruction.
The concept of a revanchist war does not, in the last analysis, stand up to rational examination. But we cannot pretend that fears of Germany do not exist. They do, and they lie, for example, at the very root of the problem of getting agreement on and signature of a nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty.
The Soviet position throughout the sessions of the 18-Nation Disarmament Committee has been inflexible. The Russians have consistently said that no agreement could be reached on non-proliferation if N.A.T.O. adopted arrangements which could be such as to make possible what the Russians call "access" to nuclear weapons by the Federal Republic of Germany. Many times they have been assured by the Western side that there was no intention in N.A.T.O. to give control of nuclear weapons, or the right or ability to initiate the use of these weapons, to any non-nuclear member of the alliance.
That has been their position in the past. But now I am happy to say there are signs of movement in the Soviet position. This may have come about because the Special Committee of Defence Ministers, the so-called "McNamara Committee", in N.A.T.O. has itself made great progress in resolving the nuclear debate in N.A.T.O.—I do not know. But there is now a new prospect of agreement and my recent discussions in Moscow with Mr. Gromyko reinforced this impression. Indeed, the chances of agreement now are as good as they have even been since the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963.
I do not want to sound too optimistic; the prospects are delicately balanced. But here we have another field in which I can promise that the Government will pursue the importance of an agreement with all their energies. Agreement here would early us far beyond the immediate concern of non-proliferation, urgent and important as that is. If we succeed, it could create a new sense of trust from

which East and West relations could benefit in a multitude of ways.
I referred to my talk with Mr. Gromyko, in Moscow. The discussion I had with him and Mr. Kosygin centred, necessarily and mainly, on the question of Vietnam, as my talks earlier, in New York and Washington, had done. Whatever our preoccupations may be with other matters—such as Rhodesia, our entry into the E.E.C. or any other subject on which we may feel enthusiastic—we must not lose sight of the fact that in Vietnam we face the most serious threat to the peace of the world today.
The repercussions stretch far beyond the boundaries of that country. Its consequences are felt not just by the countries immediately involved in the fighting, but in fields of diplomacy far removed from South-East Asia and its affairs. In a whole range of important matters, the war in Vietnam bars the path to progress.
Great Britain, as a co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, has, as my predecessor said, a particular responsibility in all this. To me, this means that we cannot just look on while this savage war continues. It carries with it an ever increasing danger of escalation; more and more people could be drawn into it, and the threat of a major conflagration is present all the time.
The problem is not just to stop the war, but to stop it urgently. We must pursue consistently the means to stop it. This is and, I believe, must be, a major concern of British diplomacy today. I wish to take the House into my confidence and make quite clear just what I am after.
At the Labour Party conference, at Brighton, I put forward detailed proposals as to how we believed that a settlement in Vietnam could be achieved. They were based on the premise that there should not be, nor could there be, a military solution to this conflict. The proposals for discussions for a cease-fire and a political settlement were made in the full knowledge that they would not be immediately acceptable in every detail to all concerned. But they were proposals upon which I believed then, and I still believe now, that peace could be built, and offered those concerned a chance to lay down their arms with honour.
I followed up these proposals at the United Nations, where they were warmly received. Both our allies and many in the uncommitted world thought that they were just and reasonable. The American reaction was encouraging. I have talked to President Johnson and to Mr. Rusk, and I know and understand only too well the strong pressures under which they must act. But they have consistently shown a desire to search for the means whereby an honourable settlement could be reached. Time and time again they have reacted favourably to peace suggestions, as they reacted to those which I made when I was there.
I talked to Mr. Gromyko, in New York, and he did not agree with my proposals. I then went to Moscow, without commitment, to see Mr. Gromyko again and Mr. Kosygin. We talked of other ways in which my objective of a settlement could be reached.
I told Mr. Gromyko that if he did not agree with the proposals which I had at first submitted, we should seek out first some measures by which the Vietnam conflict could at least be lessened in scope and intensity, and then, as a second stage, to approach a conference in the more favourable situation which would have been brought about by that first step.
Mr. Gromyko knows the possibilities. These matters are still under consideration and the House will understand if I do not go into details. But I put this situation very carefully and very plainly to Mr. Gromyko, and I emphasised with all the force at my command the urgency of the matter.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I thank my right hon. Friend for that detailed exposition. Because of the seriousness of this situation, will he try to make it plain to the Americans that the bombing which took place the other day, four miles from the centre of Hanoi, will not help in this situation? Is there any chance of him trying to get a Christmas truce that might be extended, as happened last year?

Mr. Brown: To answer the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the reports which we have are not very full or wholly confirmed. I would rather not comment on that aspect now, although I obviously

deplore every act which increases the danger or violence; but I do that as far as both sides are concerned. To answer my hon. Friend's second point, I would rather not go into that matter because, if I did so, it would take me into some of the details of the discussions which I had in Moscow.
What matters in all this is communication. If we are to make progress on any of these matters there must be understanding, and there can be no understanding without a steady exchange of views.
It would be idle to pretend that the solution to the major problems—Vietnam, the future of Germany, the building of a wider Europe of East and West—are capable of easy solution. When differences are so marked it must take time for the gulfs to be bridged. But the start must surely be high-level discussions, perhaps over a very long period of time. The continual exploring of positions—of ideas and of possible ways forward—are the necessary ingredients which go to make up solutions.
That is what I am engaged upon and it is a comfort to know that the House is behind me in this task. I believe that the line to Russian thinking is open and I hope and believe that mutual confidence is beginning to prosper. In terms of Vietnam, I think that I can rightly regard this is real progress.
I have shown the Soviet leaders that we mean business and that, in the pursuit of peace, we are in deadly earnest. My aim now is that we should all go on from there.

4.48 p.m.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary said that this debate on foreign affairs had been overlaid by the tragic situation in Rhodesia. I agree that most of the minds of hon. Members are on that situation. The right hon. Gentleman will himself be extracted in a few moments from our debate to go on one of the most miserable and unhappy errands that any Foreign Secretary can ever have been directed to undertake. Of course, we acquit him of any discourtesy. We understand, but deeply regret, the reasons why he has to go.
The Foreign Secretary began his speech by saying that he intended to deal with


some of the basic themes of foreign policy. They were broadly, he said, to assist in the processes of gaining order and peace in the world—a world which, he rightly said, should become increasingly interdependent—and that the purpose of Her Majesty's Government was to help to achieve this interdependence through the instrument of the United Nations which, he said, was an effective world authority to which we must not only give lip-service but which we should help to practise collective security.
I have, of course, no objection to that goal. It is the common purpose of all hon. Members. But it is only realistic to recognise that there is much that the U.N. cannot do so long as there is the division between the Communist world and the rest and so long as there is so strong a tendency in the U.N. General Assembly for nations to use that Assembly to further their own national purposes in contrast to the purposes of all the nations together. For example, the U.N. cannot do anything to comfort Germany if that country feels exposed or to give Germany any feeling of security.
The United Nations cannot, of course, even give a feeling of security to the South Arabian Federation. So, while I join with the right hon. Gentleman in hoping that the British Government can assist the United Nations towards an effective system of international peace, nevertheless, for the moment, I believe that we have to look very carefully at the British rôle in the world in the context in particular of our associations with other nations, but in particular of our alliances.
Therefore, I should like to follow the right hon. Gentleman into three areas of the world in which I believe actions taken by the British Government can exercise a powerful influence on the prospect of peace and, indeed, may easily turn the scale as to whether there may in the future be peace or war.
On these areas, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who will be replying, a few questions. The first area is Europe. My question relates to N.A.T.O. and, in particular, to the British contribution to its military strength, of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke just now. It is clear that France's virtual

withdrawal from contingency planning in the alliance, and the encouragements, at any rate, of a portion of America's strategic effort in the Far East, has left the Germans uneasy, and possibly in their own eyes exposed to increasing danger in the future.
Until now, Germany—and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that Germany is the key to the collective security of Western Europe—has been able to rely absolutely on the guarantee of instantaneous intervention by the whole N.A.T.O. Alliance if she were the object of aggression. Now, for the first time since the war, the Germans are apprehensive that events may face them with a choice, and the choice is unpalatable to the great majority of Germans. The choice is unilateral rearmament, with all the pressures that would inevitably follow nuclear rearmament, or, on the other hand, bargaining with her Eastern neighbours, including the Soviet Union—and bargaining from weakness, because she feels she might not be backed by the whole of the N.A.T.O. Alliance. They are stark alternatives, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that they are both repugnant to the great majority of Germans.
It is, therefore, of the essence of Europe's security and unity that the N.A.T.O. Alliance should understand Germany's problem and should act accordingly. The settlement of Germany's differences with Eastern Europe and with the Soviet Union is, of course, of the greatest interest to the allies in N.A.T.O.; but this must be a long process. There will be manoeuvre and counter-manoeuvre, and during that time the allies must make it possible for Germany to negotiate not from weakness, but from strength. She must, while she is negotiating with the Soviet Union, feel that she is secure.
If there is a reduction of forces deployed in Germany, in response to the political realities of lessening tension with the Soviet Union—and according to an allied military plan worked out by the Council of military advisers of N.A.T.O.—well and good; but if Britain were to withdraw some of her Forces for balance of payments reasons, and if, following upon that, the United States were to withdraw other units for her


own but different reasons, then I believe that Germany's reliance on N.A.T.O. would crumple like a house of cards and the whole fabric of Western European collective security would disappear.
That is what is at stake, and that is why I think that the whole House will welcome the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman—and will in future hold him to it—that nothing in respect of the deployment of British troops will be settled outside the alliance, and that the British Government will proceed strictly according to its obligations under both the N.A.T.O. Treaty and the Brussels Treaty. If those two assurances are real, and if the right hon. Gentleman means what he says, then I think that the Germans can look forward to a position which is secure, and they can safely begin the process of lessening tension with their Eastern neighbours in trying to negotiate settlements for the future with the Soviet Union.

Mr. Orme: The impression which the right hon. Gentleman gives to hon. Members on this side of the House is that he is more concerned with the military arrangements than with a political settlement in Europe. I thought that my right hon. Friend was going on to a political settlement rather than a retrenchment of the military situation.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am all for a political settlement. The point I am making—and it is one to which the hon. Gentleman should give some consideration—is that a political settlement is unlikely to be arrived at unless Germany feels secure, and Germany cannot feel secure unless she is confident that she has the backing of the whole of the N.A.T.O. alliance. That is the point I am trying to emphasise.
I turn now to the second area of strategic importance, which is the Middle East, on which the right hon. Gentleman touched briefly in the United Nations context, but no more. In this area, in contrast to Europe, the Soviet Union feels that it is entitled to pursue wars of liberation. If that statement is challenged, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House what the Government know about the importation of Russian arms and Russian agents into Syria, into Somaliland, and, of course, into Egypt

In respect of their operations in the Yemen.
Somaliland is a particularly shocking example. Russian arms are going in very large quantities into Somaliland, as the right hon. Gentleman can confirm. That is stirring up fighting on the frontier of Kenya. It is stirring up great anxiety in Ethiopia, because the House would well understand that if Somaliland were to threaten to annex Djibouti, Ethiopia would be bound to react.
Therefore, a most dangerous situation is arising in that area, and the Soviet Union—although I think some hon. Gentlemen opposite have been inclined to discount this in recent years—has long had her eye on the turbulent nationalism and racialism of the Middle East. Through her intervention there, she has calculated that she can weaken the capitalist world. Do not let us forget that 60 per cent, of the oil supplies of the world come from the Middle East and 20 per cent. is under the control of the western nations. She has also calculated that this is an area in which if there is chaos Communism can thrive and gain control; and, of course, there is an instrument ready to hand in Colonel Nasser's Egypt, because he has proclaimed his intention of annexing the oil supplies from Saudi Arabia, of ejecting British influence from Aden and the Gulf, and of driving Israel into the sea. When the King of Jordan said a week or so ago that the Soviet Union and the Egyptians were to blame for the outbreaks of fighting in the Middle East, he was speaking to the facts which he knows and which right hon. Gentlemen opposite also know.
For the future, there are three stabilising factors in the Middle East. The first is a strong and confident Saudi Arabia; the second is a stable and strong Iran; and the third is a British presence in Aden or, alternatively, a South Arabian Federal Government able to undertake the defence of its own country.
Egypt now is being held in the Yemen—indeed, I should think that the Egyptians are near defeat there—but a new lease of life will be given to them, and a new stimulus to expand, if the British barrier to advance to Aden and the Gulf is prematurely removed. The extraordinary thing is that everyone—and


in "everyone" I now include the Americans—seems to recognise this, and the damaging consequences which would flow from a premature withdrawal by 1968, except Her Majesty's Government. Already, dating from the British Government's announcement that we will withdraw in 1968, King Feisal is feverishly adding to his air force, the Shah of Iran is buying torpedo boats and aircraft, and Israel is so nervous that she lashed out with force against her neighbour.
I say most solemnly to the right hon. Gentleman that if we leave Aden before Egypt is out of the Yemen and before the South Arabian Federation is able to undertake its own defence with its own air force; if, by this withdrawal, Saudi Arabia is isolated, and Colonel Nasser is enabled to walk unhampered into Aden, and Iran tried to pre-empt Egypt in the Gulf, which Iran must do, and the Soviet all the time stirs this pot of trouble, all hell will be let loose in that area.
This is understood, I think, by almost everyone except Her Majesty's Government. I therefore beg the right hon. Gentleman, who comes comparatively new to this situation, to review the timetable of the British withdrawal, because the fact is, and everyone knows this—let the right hon. Gentleman ask the Service chiefs if he wants an opinion on this; perhaps he has done so—that the South Arabian air force cannot be equipped adequately to defend South Arabia by 1968. That is a certainty.
I therefore hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be able to tell us that there is flexibility about this date of withdrawal. At the moment, the Government are coming up against trouble because they apply a guillotine timetable. In Rhodesia, it has failed them. Here, again, it will fail them—and, I suggest, lead to disaster. But if it were known in the Middle East that there was flexibility in the British programme for withdrawal from Aden, it would have an immediately pacifying influence throughout the whole area.
Under the heading of the three strategic areas, I should like to give notice of some questions that we shall put to the Foreign Secretary with increasing urgency. What are the Government's views and objectives for British policy in the Far East, and what are the instruments to make

them effective? I approach these problems in this way. The Malaysian war with Indonesia seems to be coming to an end, but, at the same time, Her Majesty's Government have scrapped an aircraft carrier. So long as the Government are silent there is an inevitable suspicion that they have no policy for this area at all. We shall increasingly ask them what are the political objectives, and the military instruments they have in mind in order that those objectives may be achieved.
I am reluctant to conclude—there are so many opportunities in this area for the exercise of diplomacy and well-directed policy—that the Government have no policy for order and peace in this area, but I am bound to say that we have no evidence of it at the present time. We shall return to these matters after Christmas, and I hope that then the right hon. Gentleman will feel it worth while to debate the Far East, and will then be able to tell us the Government's ideas on policy and the military machinery necessary to achieve them. I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will, in particular, deal with this problem of the Middle East, because it is perhaps the most urgent problem of all.
The Foreign Secretary spoke of his intention to make contact with the leaders in our alliances and, in particular, with the Soviet Union. He went to Moscow with expectations high, and I was glad to hear from him today that he was not unduly depressed by failure to achieve any concrete results in his meetings. Meetings between Soviet leaders and British Ministers are a very good thing. Historically, the Russians have shunned contacts outside their country, and from this self-imposed isolation many unwarranted suspicions have grown. I am glad that Mr. Kosygin and Mr. Gromyko, following a visit to Paris, will be coming to London. Provided that the N.A.T.O. allies, if they negotiate singly, share their knowledge of Soviet intentions with the others—the invariable practice in past years, and something from which the strength of N.A.T.O. has greatly gained—the more contacts there are the better.
I doubt whether the Foreign Secretary could have expected progress on Vietnam, for the simple reason that the Russians are not at present in a position to deliver the goods even if they wished to do so.


I increasingly feel that a truce leading to peace is most likely to begin with direct contact between North Vietnam and the United States and as the war drags on it is probable that a forum for negotiation will have to be created rather different from the previous Geneva conferences. Nevertheless, the Soviet-British co-chairmanship should be kept in being. It could certainly be useful and, indeed, no settlement is likely to be permanent of which Russia is not a partner.
The right hon. Gentleman was, perhaps, a little coy on disarmament. Perhaps he remembered some of the scathing attacks delivered from this bench by the Prime Minister upon us when we were in power, and perhaps he remembered the election prospectus of the Labour Party, to which he was a party. I will be content to recall to him only one quotation from what was said by Lord Chalfont. He said:
It was up to Britain to put forward a completely new plan which would shake the two separate Powers out of their entrenched positions and start forward-thinking once more on comprehensive disarmament.
It took the right hon. Gentleman 14 days to put Britain back into the main stream of world events after the tenure of office of his right hon. Friend the First Secretary. Is it not time he now gave Lord Chalfont a shake-up? I ask, because the plain truth is that in two years there is precisely nothing to show on disarmament at all. I hope that the Foreign Secretary is right about a non-proliferation treaty. Such a treaty would be valuable, if we could get it, and if that is peeping out of the pigeon-hole a little more than it was, that is a good thing.
We have had a chance briefly to review some of the all-over scene in the world. I think that these debates are usually more valuable when we can concentrate on one area. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will enable us to debate the Far East after Christmas. If, in the meantime, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster could give some hope that, in particular, in respect of the Middle East, the date of withdrawal from Aden is flexible, the Government could, at least in this debate, make a decisive contribution in the direction in which the right hon. Gentleman is looking to increase order and peace in the world.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. K. Zilliacus: I shall not attempt to follow the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) over the whole field. I want to concentrate on two points. The first is the statement of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that the United Nations is not something to be preached; it is something to be practised, and we must deal with the fundamentals of our policy. The second point is the application of this in particular to Germany and Europe.
My view is that all parties since the war have, with greater or less intensity, fervour and conviction, expressed their adhesion to the principles, purposes and obligations of the Charter, but have based their policy on military alliances. At least I am consistent in this, because when N.A.T.O. was introduced for approval to the House on 12th May, 1949, I both spoke and voted against it, on the ground that it tore up the Charter, reverted to the balance of power, and started an arms race.
At that time we were told by the Labour Government that N.A.T.O. would make it easier to reach agreement with the Soviet Union in a spirit of conciliation and reason, an agreement which would unite Europe, strengthen the United Nations and open the door to disarmament. Looking back on everything that has happened since, it seems to me that I was completely right and that the Government were wildly wrong.
The great difference between my right hon. Friends and right hon. Members opposite is that my right hon. Friends really do believe in the United Nations. The only trouble is that they do not know what it means. They are schizophrenic on the matter. I must refer to something else said by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I have great admiration for my right hon. Friend's energy, his resourcefulness and his eloquence. If anybody could make a success of the policies to which we are committed, he would. Unfortunately, the policies are wrong and need changing. Having said this, however, I must say that my right hon. Friend will have the whole of this side of the House behind him in his mission to New York. We all hope that he will succeed in launching


effective action to put a stop to Ian Smith and his merry men in Rhodesia.
My right hon. Friend said, in one and the same breath, that we must build up the United Nations and be guided by its decisions, and that peace is being maintained by the balance of power. I would say that peace has so far survived in spite of the balance of power, the arms race and the rival alliances, but it cannot survive indefinitely on that basis. The sooner we can transfer the mutual relations of the great Powers from the rival alliances to our common obligations in the Charter the sooner we shall start the business of making the world safer for peace.
I know that my right hon. Friend has only just taken on the job of Foreign Secretary. He has his briefs given to him. He expounds them in perfect good faith. At the Labour Party conference at Brighton he made a remark which made me sit up; he said:
As U Thant has reminded us only recently, peace at this moment is maintained by the existence of military alliances. Accept this we must.
I did not accept that as coming from the Secretary-General of the United Nations. I thought that there was some mistake.
As this goes right to the heart of the point I am trying to press home, I will elaborate it a little. I rang up the United Nations office in London. Those to whom I spoke could not produce any such statement by U Thant. I rang up the United Nations Division of the Foreign Office. Those people too were not able to produce any such statement. They said that when their man at the General Assembly in New York came back he could put his hand on it. Their man came back, but he could not find any such statement.
So then I wrote directly to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. I had his reply. It appeared in Tribune last week. U Thant said this:
If this statement was generally understood as implying that I have at any time supported the present system of military alliances, this would be a matter of regret to me. I cannot accept such an implication, nor could anyone who has heard or read my views on the subject.
U Thant went on to quote a recent speech of his as showing what his views really are. In that speech he said this:

There is not a Government in the world, perhaps for the first time in history, which does not profess, in its own way, to be peace-loving. One hundred and seventeen Governments have ratified the United Nations Charter, which sets out the rights and obligations of peace-loving nations. There is hardly a Government in the world which is not committed to work for the peace and prosperity of its people. There is a view universally held … that the future of mankind lies in co-operation rather than conflict. Certainly the interdependence of nations is now a fact which even the greatest must recognize…
But then wé turn the coin and see the obverse—he cynical side. The greatest powers are locked in an ideological struggle and in a balance of terror based on the most destructive—and most expensive—arsenal of armaments ever known. The lesser powers survive in this precarious balance either through alliances with either side or in the more complex position of non-alignment. The majority of the world's people live in poverty and backwardness, the helpless spectators of this spendthrift struggle of giants. And by far the greatest efforts and expenditures are still for wars which no one can win—not for the human problems and possibilities which it is within our power to solve and to realise if we have the vision, the patience and the will to co-operate. Is not this gap between stated ideals and actual practice truly cynical? And yet we all in some degree connive in the vast self deception.
Unfortunately, my right hon. Friends are in this self-deception up to the neck. They have sincerely deceived themselves. They are not talking with their tongues in their cheeks. They really do not know the difference between the balance of power and collective security or between the United Nations and military alliances. But this policy is now coming to a dead end. It is becoming too expensive to maintain and it is no longer working. It is visibly breaking down, particularly in Europe.
I am glad that on Rhodesia we have at long last been compelled to do what we should have done from the start and treated this question of racial equality as a matter of international concern and gone to the United Nations to deal with it on the basis of the Charter. The ignorance about the United Nations is such that people use such phrases as "handing it over to the United Nations". The United Nations is not an entity which exists outside the Governments composing it. It is those Governments, plus their undertakings to conduct their mutual relations and international affairs on the basis of their obligations under the Charter.
We do not hand over responsibility for a solution of the situation in Rhodesia by going to the United Nations. Our going there means that we exercise that responsibility on the basis of our obligations under the Charter and together with other countries. I hope that there will be no more of this appearance of being pushed backwards step by step into the United Nations and then hanging back when we get in there.
I hope that it is not a question of our applying sanctions so selectively that they are not effective and fearing to do anything to upset South Africa. We should go in for tough comprehensive sanctions and let sanction-breakers take their chance, in so far as we can get the co-operation of others. According to Press reports, the others, including the United States and Canada, not to mention the African members of the Commonwealth, are very willing to go all the way on oil sanctions.
As part of mandatory sanctions there is the obligation on all members of the United Nations, under Articles 49 and 50 of the Charter, first to give mutual assistance in the carrying out of sanctions and, secondly, to give special help to any member of the United Nations especially affected economically by the carrying out of sanctions. That last point applies to Zambia. The first point applies to us as well as to others. We should use this whole gamut of obligations and take the lead in putting forward bold plans for carrying them out.
In Europe, the need for departing from military alliances as the basis of our policy and trying the experiment of taking our stand on the Charter has become acute. First, there is the financial need. We have just heard the Foreign Secretary tell us that the best the Bonn Government can offer so far is £31 million in offset expenses for the B.A.O.R., whereas we are spending £94 million. That is rather more than the gap that existed in December, 1964, when the Prime Minister told the House that it was an intolerable position which we had to put right.
The Bonn Government are themselves in balance of payments difficulties, largely because of their excessive defence expenditure. The Americans are pressing them much harder than we are for even greater

arms expenditure to offset the cost of American troops there. We cannot solve the problem on that basis. But we could if we chose to apply our own policies. I shall come to what that means in a moment.
I do not think that we shall get into the Common Market because our position is based on a paradox. On the one hand, we rely on the predominant influence of President de Gaulle to keep the European community from developing into a political union, and on the other we are banking on our ability to set aside his predominant influence and let us in while tied to N.A.T.O. and the American alliance. It is quite clear that he will not do it, and that he will veto our coming in on that basis. But the Government stick doggedly to N.A.T.O. and the American alliance. Owing to the disparity of power, that means a policy of subservience, because when one ally has 98 per cent. of the power it dictates to the other. That is the elementary logic of power politics when one does not have the power and the other fellow has.
What we could do and should try to do is to start at the other end, as it were At the very worst it would cushion the shock if and when the present probes and negotiations failed. At the best it could provide a context in which they might succeed or provide a more hopeful and wider-based alternative policy.
We should direct our energies to giving the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations, to which both East and West Europe belong—and the Soviet Union, the United States and the United Kingdom belong—sufficient power and authority. It has them on paper already and it is a matter simply of Government policy to make a reality of those paper obligations. It should be given sufficient power and authority to act as the economic link between Comecon in the East and the E.E.C. and E.F.T.A. in the West, and as an active promoter of economic and technical co-operation in such matters as developing East-West trade, banking, credits, finance, transport and communications, and the distribution of gas, oil, and hydro-electric power.
That would provide the economic under-pinning for the kind of foreign policy to which the Government are pledged on paper but have never carried


out. Our policy for a non-aggression and settlement of disputes treaty between the Warsaw Alliance and N.A.T.O. Powers, accompanied by disengagement and measures of disarmament and followed up by collective security measures based on the Charter on an all-European scale, is a basis on which we know that the Soviet Government would immediately negotiate. They have said so again and again and Mr. Kosygin went so far on his recent visit to Paris as to reiterate the Soviet offer to scrap the Warsaw Alliance if N.A.T.O. were disbanded or fell to pieces. They have again and again proposed the winding-up of both alliances in the context of all-European arrangements on the lines I have outlined, which coincide with those to which this side of the House has been committed for some years.
Those two measures together would also supply the basis on which Germany could be unified within her existing frontiers and by stages. Again, that is a policy which was outlined by the Labour Party sore years ago and has never been officially abandoned although it has never been applied. Now is the time to press that policy. Acting on the principle which has also been officially proclaimed on this side of the House that defence must be the servant and not the master of foreign policy we should say to our allies and the German Government that we refuse to be committed to war by allies who fail to agree with us on how to make peace.
We should begin with the economic proposals, because they would win almost universal support. Increasing East-West trade and economic co-operation is now becoming the policy of the United States, France and the European Economic Community. It is a policy on which both sides of Europe could unit and on which we could give a lead that would undoubtedly be followed. The political corollary to that would also receive a great deal of support, in view of the growing failure of the present policy.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to a resolution which was unanimously adopted by the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians in Paris a couple of weeks ago, calling for talks between Parliamentarians of Western Europe and the War-

saw Pact and other Eastern countries? If he has noticed it, would he draw it to the attention of his friends in Eastern Europe, because it might be a very useful contribution to what he has just said?

Mr. Zilliacus: I agree that that is important and encouraging. It would be the Parliamentary basis for working out the idea of an agreement between the two alliances. That sort of move is now in the air.
Let us examine a little more closely the revival of German nationalism, and the alarm that it has excited. I do not believe that it will as things are become a major menace because, (a) Germany is not strong enough—certainly not West Germany—to challenge the world; and (b) there is not the mass unemployment, the runaway inflation and the ruined and desperate middle and lower middle classes which were the raw materials for Hitler's Fascism. But it is an alarming symptom and conveys a serious warning.
The revival happened because ever since the war we have encouraged the West German Government to believe that they could achieve the reunification of their country and even the restoration of their 1937 frontiers thanks to N.A.T.O., that N.A.T.O. would enable them to bring in their allies for a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union to secure a settlement agreeable to the Bonn Government. That meant not a settlement within their existing frontiers but including what are now Soviet and Polish territories within the 1937 frontiers.
The idea has gradually sifted through that that policy is a non-starter. Neither the American Government, the British Government, still less the French Government—in fact no Government—is prepared to risk a third world war for the sake of restoring Germany's 1937 frontiers. The view of her allies is that she must recognise that she was defeated in the war that Hitler started and accept her existing frontiers. On the present basis unification is not proceeding. It cannot proceed except within the kind of European framework which I have outlined and for which this side of the House has stood for a long time. Some more moderate Germans are now groping towards that kind of policy.
I do not share the enthusiasm of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary


for the new German Government. I think that the German Social Democrats have sold out to a pretty bad lot of people with whom they have joined up. Nevertheless, there are moves now in Germany by people who realise that they cannot get allied military support for unification under the threat of force, that they must negotiate for unification with the Soviet Government and that that means accepting their existing frontiers.
The policy for which we have officially stood on this side of the House for a long time, and which I have outlined, will offer a constructive alternative to the moderate elements in Germany. It will show them how Germany can be unified within an all-European framework, and how a reunited Germany in the United Nations can occupy a literally central and honoured and important position in working for integration, disarmament and peace in the whole of Europe. She can play a big and beneficent part in the world within that kind of framework and harnessed to purposes of that kind.
There are many Germans today who want to see that kind of development and who want to work for such a policy. By taking this line ourselves, we could strengthen those elements in Germany and put out of joint the noses of the nationalists who still cling to the belief that they can settle things by force on a "do it yourself" basis.
All this means that we consciously and deliberately put our obligations under the Charter, as we are bound to do under Article 103, before our obligations under military alliances, and that we go in for policies for winding up the alliances and replacing them by all-European arrangements based on the Charter. I believe that our rôle in the world, now that we are no longer a first-class military Power, should not be that of an off-shore island, a second Sweden, or that of an American dependency, and neither should we be swallowed up by a tightly-knit little group of politically motivated States in the west end of Europe.
We should be the first major Power with a permanent seat in the Security Council to take its stand effectively and genuinely on the obligations of the Charter, and to give a lead through the United Nations and through a united

Commonwealth—for the Commonwealth nations can be united on this basis, as they are all bound by the Charter—for a fresh start in world affairs with the object of building up the United Nations into an assured guarantee of peace and as a corollary winding up the military alliances as part of the evil heritage of the cold war.

5.12 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate at the earliest possible moment which could be open to me, and I also thank the two Front Bench speakers for taking less than an hour of our time. I think that this is a record. It may have been born out of necessity, but it is nevertheless very welcome as it will allow many more Members to take part in this, as it is now, one-day debate than would otherwise have been possible.
I support the plea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) when he asked for flexibility in the Government's policy to withdraw from Aden. This is absolutely vital. I hope that the Government will seriously reconsider their policy in this matter. I can imagine nothing worse than our leaving a vacuum in that part of the world, in its present troubled state with the menaces of Nasser hanging over the Middle East and with the threat to Israel as well.
Little has been said about Israel so far in the debate, but it is important for us to ensure the stability of that country, which has done so much to bring Western civilisation into the Middle East. I hope that everything will be done to prevent any threat from Nasser to drive Israel into the sea ever being brought into fruition.
My main reason for wishing to take part in the debate was touched on by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus). Very unusually, I find myself in agreement with what the hon. Gentleman said in his references to the rise of the National Democratic Party in Germany, and its implications. I say "rise" because, happily, it is only a very small beginning at present. Let us hope that what has happened in Hesse and Bavaria will be a beginning and no more.
I express my gratitude to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for very


promptly replying to a letter which I wrote to him last week and for being somewhat reassuring in his answer. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he thought that the party was nationalist rather than neo-Nazi, and he said:
Its leadership certainly comprises a high proportion of ex-Nazis. In contrast to other German political parties, it adopts a non-committal attitude to Nazi Germany".
This is dangerous, to begin with. It is almost unthinkable that any modern party anywhere in the world today could be non-committal to Nazi Germany and all its foul deeds, internally and externally, between 1933 and 1945. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
… in so far as it has a progamme, this is certainly Nationalist rather than neo-Nazi".
Because I was not too happy about the Motion on the Order Paper signed by Members of all parties deploring this development and calling it a neo-Nazi movement, I did not sign it myself, but I feel that we should take heed of this rise of the N.D.P. in Germany. The Foreign Secretary told us that public opinion in Germany today backs its democratic leaders, that Germany is not aggressive and that there is no resurgent nationalism. In the main, this is fundamentally true, because, as the Chancellor of the Duchy points out in his letter, 89 per cent. of German votes go to the three main democratic parties, but I trust that we shall take a leaf from our experience in the 1920s and 1930s when not enough attention was paid to the threats of Hitlerism long before it became a force and eventually tricked itself into power.
We should beware of German nationalism as well. We are apt to forget that there was no Nazi Party in Germany in 1914, no party which believed in destroying the rule of law internally and descending to a savagery almost unknown in modern history outside the Iron Curtain. In 1914, German nationalism was law-abiding internally, but it was the exact opposite internationally, and this is what we must watch. Someone once retorted, when the Germans were deploring that everyone condemned them for having started the 1914 war, that history would not say that Belgium invaded Germany. We must pay heed to what happened in 1914 as well a s to what happened in 1939 in the light of what is, we hope, only a

temporary rise of a menacing party in Germany today.
There is another comfort to be drawn from the German situation now. If in 1914 it was German nationalism, or, perhaps one should say, Prussian nationalism which was behind the warmongering activities of the then German Government, Prussia is now divided into four, part in the Federal Republic, part in East Germany, part in Poland, and part of East Prussia in the Soviet Union. Perhaps it was because they realised the danger of German nationalism, particularly of the Junkers of East Prussia and the damage they had done in two world wars, that the Russians decided to seize part of East Prussia and keep it under their control.
Just as I hope that we shall not bring troops out of Aden until we have left security there, I hope that we shall never bring home all our troops from the B.A.O.R. I hope also that the Americans never take all their troops out of Europe. I know that I shall probably provoke disagreement on the benches opposite when I say that, but I am convinced that the presence of allied troops in Germany is not only a trip-wire against aggression from the east, and, perhaps, against the seizure of West Berlin in particular, but it is a safeguard inasmuch as we should have troops there if German nationalism rose again to a dangerous level.

Dr. Hugh Gray: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that, if all allied troops were withdrawn from Western Europe and all Russian troops from Eastern Europe, this would contribute to peace?

Sir R. Russell: Not necessarily. I do not think that it would necessarily contribute to peace inside Germany. I would rather see the troops there. It was Stresemann who realised, in about 1929, that, whatever his peaceful intentions were, the first thing the German Government had to do, if it was to recover its sovereignty, so to speak, was to get rid of the Army of Occupation of the 1920s. He succeeded in doing that in 1930 and from then on we lost any hope of keeping Hitler or any other force out of power. We should profit from that lesson and ensure that, for the foreseeable future, British, American and other allied troops keep guard on the Rhine.
The Foreign Secretary expressed the hope that the new German Government would be successful in carrying out sound policies in Western Europe. I am sure that we would all echo that. Dr. Kiesinger was once a member of the German delegation to the Council of Europe and most of us there were sorry when he left the delegation and was given in a sense a provincial post as Minister-President of Baden-Württemberg. Now that he has almost the highest office in the land, we hope that he and his coalition will give stability to German politics, as the Foreign Secretary said, and will help maintain peace in Western Europe.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for his speech and wish him all possible success with his mission to New York. I gather that, perhaps even while I am speaking, he will be catching a plane for the United States. He knows that the affection, loyalty and good wishes of everyone on this side—and I believe the whole House—go with him to the United States.
Last July, when U Thant announced his intention of not seeking re-election as Secretary-General of the United Nations, more than a hundred right hon. and hon. Members signed a Motion of confidence and support appealing to him to continue to serve world peace in the United Nations. A similar move was made in another place.
As Chairman of the United Nations Parliamentary Group, I was asked to write to him conveying the sentiments of the British Parliament. It represented, I think, the unanimous view of everyone at Westminster. Many of us remember vividly the wonderful speech that U Thant made in the Royal Gallery on his last visit to London, the brilliant way he answered questions and how impressed we were by his modesty, sincerity and courage. In the next five years he will need those qualities in full measure.
I am sure that it is once again the unanimous wish of Parliament that we should congratulate and thank U Thant, as my right hon. Friend has already done, for giving himself up to us all for another five years. Some weeks ago, I had the privilege of talking to U Thant in his

office on the 38th floor of the United Nations building in New York. He was still undecided then about whether he would stay, and there were, I believe, three issues particularly on his mind where he wanted to see real progress—Vietnam, United Nations peace keeping and finance.
Outside, there was speculation that he had made some conditions about staying on—that, as well as assurances from the great Powers about their own conduct and their support for the Secretary-General and for the initiatives he might take, he would only continue to serve if there was real progress on at least one of these three issues.
It is not yet clear what progress there has been, what the conditions are which enabled him to stay. But on finance there are reports that the Russians and the French are now planning to repay part at least of their debts to the United Nations. On peace keeping, the Foreign Minister of Ireland and others have been making valiant efforts, and I hope that they have been supported energetically by the United Kingdom delegation, because if ever there was a nation with a vital national interest in effective international peace keeping, it is Britain now.
On Vietnam, all one can say is that, for the moment, in spite of my right hon. Friend's words of warning, the danger of escalation seems less and that both the great Powers principally involved undoubtedly want to see an end of the war. Last month I made a trip to the United States which, as well as taking me to U.N. headquarters, took me right across the Continent and back, from Boston to San Francisco, via Syracuse, Washington, Indiana, Denver, Colorado, Casper, Wyoming, and many other places. On Vietnam, I was surprised in America by two things. The first was, among informed people, by the strength of feeling against the war and American Government policy and, incidentally, the strength of feeling that Britain should play a more independent and more forthright rôle. Secondly, I was depressed by the lamentably ill-informed state of public opinion generally about Vietnam and international affairs.
Britain is importing many features of the American way of life. America is a wonderful country but I do not want to


see our economy, our society and our habits modelled on the contemporary American conurbation—and God forbid that we should copy the American Press or American broadcasting. I wonder whether there is a worse informed public about international affairs in any developed country in the world.
At all events, on Vietnam, I believe that Britain may have a most vital rôle to play, perhaps more in helping America off the hook than in any other way. Moreover, the less we play the rôle of American satellite, the more we can really help the United States. Most of our peace-making work, I believe, must be done in private. I do not much believe in the efficacy of public appeals such as that which my right hon. Friend made at the United Nations Assembly, brilliant though his speech was. I believe that his real rôle over Vietnam will be much more the kind of job he was doing in Moscow, in spite of the fact that his visit was exploratory and he did not bring back any concrete results.
But the time may come when my right hon. Friend's services can be of the greatest value to the great Powers behind the Vietnam war; and I believe the services of the Secretary-General may at some stage be decisive. There is no reason why negotiations for a settlement must necessarily be preceded by a cessation of hostilities. There is a good precedent for exactly the contrary procedure. In Korea, discussions for the cease-fire which became the present settlement were begun while the fighting continued.
In such a situation I think that the Secretary-General's services might be of supreme importance in finding a settlement in Vietnam. It is also very possible that a U.N. peace-keeping force, perhaps built on the existing International Control Commission, which is still in Vietnam, but under United Nations command on the Cyprus or Gaza model, could play a most valuable rôle in facilitating the final withdrawal of foreign troops. This may well be a long way off and other preoccupations may have taken cur minds off Vietnam. But, because the end of the war in Vietnam is the key to all progress in relations between East and West—with China as well as with the Soviet Union—and eventually to disarmament, to help to end

the war must be the major objective of British foreign policy as of the United Nations.
I do not accept the American Government's assessment of Chinese intentions. I do not believe that for many years revolutionary China will be a threat to her neighbours in South-East Asia. I accept U Thant's opinion about that. I do not accept the domino theory and I believe that the days are past when any non-Asian country, even one as powerful as the United States, can or should attempt by unilateral military action to maintain a political balance in Asia.
But, apart from the fact that the American campaign in Vietnam is a flagrant violation of the spirit and letter of the Charter of the United Nations, what is true of America in Asia is equally true of Britain in Asia, in Africa and in the Middle East—and this is where I disagree entirely with the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R Russell) and with a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) said. Of course, the problems of de-colonisation are exceedingly difficult for the former Colony as well as for the former imperial Power. No one can say that the new independent nations have made a success of governing themselves. Alas, democracy and freedom and law are in ruins throughout black Africa—in Ghana and Nigeria and Zanzibar and many other places as well as in Rhodesia and South Africa and Angola and Mozambique. No British Parliamentarian can be very proud of most of the Governments of the new Commonwealth, and there are several as well as Rhodesia with whom the Commonwealth link is of very doubtful value to the United Kingdom.
Reconciling British policies to the post-colonial era is, of course, extraordinarily difficult, difficult politically and economically and difficult for all kinds of practical reasons, but above all psychologically and emotionally difficult for the British. For those of us on this side of the House and even for our own Government Front Bench the process of adjustment to the facts of Britain's place in the world has not been at all easy.
The facts are that the British Empire is finished, that no remaining colonial possession or imperial foothold anywhere in the world, Fiji, St. Helena, Aden, Bahrein, Gan or the sovereign base areas in Cyprus, or Gibraltar, serves any real exclusive British interest any longer. On the contrary, many of our imperial commitments, the struggle in Southern Arabia and our bases in the Indian Ocean, like Rhodesia, have been immense obstacles to our taking our proper place in the United Nations and in the modern world.
When the Foreign Secretary gets to New York, he will be reminded very vividly of how low Britain's stock is today and how unhappy many of the best, most loyal and most progressive members of the United Nations are about British policies. British defence commitments and British intentions—the Norwegians, the Swedes, the Canadians, precisely the kind of Government with whom we should be co-operating most closely in building a post-colonial world in which Britain could play a great progressive rôle.
British Ministers today, like Ministers in previous Governments, talk a good deal about British responsibilities towards people who were once subjects of our Empire, and, of course, there are problems, very difficult problems, about pulling out of Arabia and other areas still under British occupation, problems which are sometimes much more serious for the local people than for ourselves. But the British Government's chief responsibility is to the British people. The time has gone when Britain could or should take or claim sole responsibility for territories or peoples overseas. If there are difficulties about transition, and there often are, which require outside intervention, then the proper way is to call in other countries with equal interest in peace and stability in the area concerned, and to call them in through the United Nations. I believe that that applies to the Arabian Peninsula as well as to any other part of the world in which we still have an imperial or colonial responsibility.
Our experience over Rhodesia has illustrated this point very clearly. Personally, I tend to agree with those who

think that two regiments of paratroops at the very beginning would have brought the collapse of the Smith rôgime. But not only did we not use force, we told the world that we were not going to use force and from then on we were in an impossible position. We were claiming exclusive responsibility for a problem which we had no power to solve. From that moment Britain should have faced the fact that we had no power and handed over our responsibility to the United Nations with a pledge to participate loyally in whatever action was decided. Perhaps the United Nations action would not have been very effective, but at least it would not have been any less effective than our own efforts, and it would have been far less damaging to Britain's relations with the Commonwealth and other countries.
I am sorry that I cannot accept the arguments on which our east of Suez policy has been based. As I understand them, there are three—that our military presence, or arrangements for its quick arrival, strengthen the United Nations; that we can answer appeals from Commonwealth Governments; and that we can prevent the Americans and Chinese from being, in the elegant phrase, eyeball to eyeball.
Frankly, I think that this last is nonsense. We are just not being our size if we imagine that flying Comets or Britannias from Lyneham in Wiltshire to Singapore has had any effect on whether Chinese troops enter Vietnam, or any effect on American or Chinese policy in the Far East. As for strengthening the United Nations, on the contrary, I think that our east of Suez commitments have been a grave political embarrassment at the United Nations and, from a practical point of view, if participation in United Nations peace-keeping operations were really the objective, our forces would be deployed quite differently. Moreover, it is not easy to believe in either the credibility or reliability of a military system whose communications are as fragile as ours are to the area east of Suez when they are entirely dependent on over-flying rights given by Turkey and by the Shah of Persia. Any dispute with either Government would mean that the only way in which we could reach Singapore would be flying west—about across North America and the Pacific


Ocean. Incidentally, I suppose that this helps to explain why so often we have been so mealy-mouthed in dealing with Turkey over the question of the Greek island, Cyprus.
The final argument, that our east of Suez forces could help Commonwealth Governments, seems to me both out of date and entirely wrong, quite apart from the obvious comment that the Tashkent Agreement shows how little some Commonwealth Governments value Britain when they face really important international issues. I know that there is a precedent in that a few British bayonets saved President Nyerere and President Kenyatta from revolution. President Nyerere thanked us by soon afterwards breaking off diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom. Certainly this will never happen again. Indeed, it did not happen when the former Nigerian Government appealed to Britain for military help and we refused it.
Moreover, in the modern world there is no reason whatever why unpopular or unstable Governments in foreign countries, whether in the Commonwealth or outside it, should be propped up by troops from the United Kingdom. Our east of Suez policy, including our attempt to maintain a military foothold in the Persian Gulf, is out of date and does this country more harm than good.
I shall not now explore the American implications of that policy, except to say that many Americans and many people in this country, including many hon. Members on these benches, find it impossible to believe that the American desire not to be left isolated in South-East Asia and our economic dependence on America are not the principal reasons for our position east of Suez today. Incidentally, that position and the sterling area are likely to be the major obstacles, at least where France is concerned, and possibly fatal obstacles, to our entry into the Common Market.
Our east of Suez policy, our bases in the Indian Ocean to Singapore, our occupation of Southern Arabia and the Persian Gulf reflect thinking about Britain's place in the world and about the Commonwealth which are entirely out of keeping with reality in 1966. We are an important European country with no exclusive interests and no exclusive respon-

sibilities on any other continent any longer. Our security and our hope of peace rest with the United Nations. Perhaps this is a frail hope. If it is, all our efforts must be deployed to make it stronger.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. G. B. H. Currie: I am sure that the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) will forgive me if I do not comment on his argument, in the course of which he spoke about the greater part of the surface of the globe. He made a very wide-ranging survey——

Mr. Percy Grieve: A gazeteer.

Mr. Currie: —of the foreign affairs of the world as they face our country. I want to speak for only a short time on a very limited aspect of foreign affairs—the Arabian Peninsula and the Middle East.
I was very glad that the Foreign Secretary deferred to these areas, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) devoted so much time to the problems of these areas that there is no useful contribution which I can make to what he has already said about the South Arabian Peninsula. I regret the withdrawal of British troops from the Aden base before firm arrangements have been made for filling the void which will inevitably be left there. I also feel that the withdrawal of our troops from this base constitutes a grave threat to the further northern parts of Arabia and could constitute a menace to some British interests which lie further north.
I should like to move from that area to the Middle East and to a very limited area in the Middle East. We see there the problems of the displaced Arabs, the attacks and counter-attacks which have been made across the borders of Israel, and we must make it clear to all who listen to us that it is our policy and duty to maintain the State of Israel. It should not go out from this House that there is any doubt at all as to the determination of both sides of this House to maintain the existing State of Israel.
Having said that, I must say that these constant attacks and counter-attacks create grave dangers throughout the whole of the Middle East and much further


afield. Foreign Powers are sometimes only too anxious to take advantage of opportunities for the infiltration of influence, if not of something more sinister, because of the difficulties arising through such attacks and counter-attacks.
It is not my aim this afternoon to apportion blame for these attacks and counter-attacks. Obviously there are provocations, and I do not intend to enter into a discussion as to who originates them or as to the point where provocation should have ceased. All that I am anxious to do is to put forward a few thoughts as to the possible solution of the problems confronting us in the Middle East.
There is a grave possibility of an escalation of the attacks in this area. Only three weeks ago we read that 14 Jordanian soldiers, six Jordanian civilians and one Israeli officer were killed in an attack during which 400 troops and eight tanks were used. Obviously it may have been a retaliatory attack. This is surely the sort of thing that we want to do all that we can to prevent in future. According to a report attributed to the Israeli Foreign Minister, arising out of this event:
The fighting and loss of life was beyond what was expected or planned.
This was in the Daily Express yesterday, perhaps not always a very reliable paper but sometimes correct. It is indeed a tragic situation when attacks of this nature are planned by a responsible Government. No doubt there have been provocations, and our duty now is to try to bring about the creation of a new situation in which provocation ceases and in which these neighbouring countries live together in peace.
I have one new and constructive suggestion to put forward. We already have diplomatic relations with most of Israel's neighbours. There is only one country with which, unfortunately and tragically, we do not have diplomatic relations and that is the United Arab Republic. The name of President Nasser has already been mentioned in this debate, both in connection with the South Arabian Peninsula and in connection with events in the Middle East, on the frontiers of Israel.
My suggestion, and I believe that there is a real opportunity in this direction, is that the Government should attempt to re-establish diplomatic relations with the U.A.R. We should enter into conversations with President Nasser and the leaders of the other Arab countries surrounding Jordan in an attempt to arrange discussions across the table between the Arab countries and Israel, with Britain represented. The conference should attempt to achieve a real peace in the whole of that area.
As I have said, the time is now opportune. I have had discussions with someone from the United Arab Republic who holds a position of responsibility. This is a suggestion which could contribute towards a settlement of the problems which we face in the South Arabian peninsula and in the countries of the Middle East. President Nasser is undoubtedly a person of great influence throughout Arab territories. If he could be persuaded to enter into the spirit of this operation, he could carry great weight in efforts to ensure stability and peace. This is my plea, that the Government should enter into the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with the U.A.R. and in this way move towards a settlement of the Middle East problems.

5.47 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: I had not intended to deal with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie). I had only intended to take up the time of the House for a short time on a matter which, I think, is of extreme importance. Since the hon. Gentleman has raised the point, however, I must say that he is perfectly right in his desire for a round-table conference between the Arabs and Israel. Time after time Israel has asked for this to take place.
As everyone in the House and, indeed, throughout the world, knows, she is desirous to be allowed to remain in peace so that she can carry on her cultural, economic and other peaceful developments. God knows, the people who are today living in Israel, particularly those who have gone there as refugees, have suffered sufficient not to desire anything in the nature of war.
There is no aggressive desire on the part of Israel. It is perfectly true that people


from without are not yet realising what has been going on in Israel during the last 18 months or so. It has been something which no State could possibly have tolerated and could not have allowed to continue.
Mines have been laid in her country; people have been blown up. This and similar kinds of attack have been made almost daily. Unfortunately, some Arab States not only agree that such attacks should take place, but desire that they should continue to do so. Infiltrators have been trained and openly encouraged to carry on this kind of work. Is there any country which could allow for any longer the kind of incidents which have been taking place, deliberately, in respect of its country which has no desire or intention to be offensive or aggressive towards its neighbours? It is no wonder that this could no longer be tolerated by Israel and that something had to be done to try to stop it.
I was amazed that a resolution should be passed in the Security Council which did not mention that the citizens of the other side had been ruthlessly attacked not in mass attacks, but by infiltrators who had been allowed to come from various surrounding countries. No condemnation of these incidences was expressed by the Security Council, although these matters have come before the United Nations. The United Nations knows that the attackers came from certain countries, but the Security Council has not registered a single motion in respect of them.
I appeal strongly to all right-thinking people to consider the position and to do everything possible to ensure that the differences between the two countries are settled. Every Israeli Prime Minister and political leader has said that Israel does not want war or wish to attack, any other people. If the Arab nations were given to understand firmly that Israel has come to stay and is definitely staying with the accord and consent of the organisation U.N.O. which represents the civilised world and intends to bring understanding and peace among the people of the world, then I think that the Arabs who are now carrying on this aggression will discuss around a table the problems which face both peoples.
It is strange that I should now have to turn to a subject which I hoped would

have long ago disappeared from the topics which we debate. Thirty-three years ago I made a speech in the House and I should like to quote from it. I said:
I had hoped that it would not have been necessary to refer again to the tragic and horrifying actions of the Nazi rôgime in Germany.
I could use those words today. I then continued:
I had hoped that the forcible expressions of public opinion throughout the world against these occurrences might have had the effect of making those who are in power in Germany realise that the action which they were taking, and the manner in which it was taken, ought to stop, and that civilisation and civilised beings would not tolerate activities of that kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1933; Vol. 280, c. 408.]
I went on to talk about what Hitler was advocating and how he believed that to win the sympathy of the masses "You must tell them the crudest and most stupid things" and how he told his followers that they should lie and use every subterfuge to deceive the world.
I hope that the House will forgive me for referring to these matters. I need hardly say that they have been agonising for me, for my Jewish co-religionists and many others who suffered the loss by the vice of the Nazis of 10 million people, including 6 million Jewish people, during the Nazi régime. We have often been asked to forget and forgive. I wonder whether people realise what is happening today in respect of the new neo-Nazi party which has suddenly reared its ugly head in Germany and whether the tactics being adopted by that party cannot be identified with those used when the Nazis were pursuing their vicious and uncivilised sub-human policies.
I have a book here from which I have quoted in the House before. Baron von Neurath sent a cable to the Catholic clergy of America at a time when protests were being made. It stated:
According to Press notices here, delegates of the Catholic clergy will take part in the mass demonstrations in Madison Square, New York, and elsewhere, which have been organised as a protest against the alleged pogroms against German Jews. I beg to assure your Eminence most emphatically, that all such allegations are without foundation. The National Revolution in Germany, which has for its aim the destruction of Communism and the cleansing of public life from Marxist elements has taken place in exemplary order.


Transgressions against this were remarkably isolated and insignificant.
This is the usual sort of thing which many of us here are accustomed to and know all about.

Mr. John Hynd: What was the date?

Sir B. Janner: Thirty-three years ago. Unfortunately, I have to repeat these things in the House 33 years later.
The rise of this new party in Germany is serious to me, for in it I see the same signs as were evident when the Nazi Party started.
Some people say, "Do not dwell on this. There are people in Germany who themselves are protesting violently against this kind of attitude and this kind of party". I agree that there are, and we have heard of the demonstrations which have taken place. Many young people are protesting, because they see danger in the rise of such a party.
Then there are those who say, "That being the case, why deal with this position? It will strengthen the hands of the neo-Nazi party if you attack it or give it publicity". That is the same kind of argument that was used when enlightened people in Germany were endeavouring to combat the rise of the Nazis. I remember it to this day. It was said, "Do not give them any publicity. Do not worry about them. They are not worth considering". By that type of policy we did not help the enlightened people in Germany at that time.
I do not wish to throw an aspersion on those who are anxious that this kind of party should not flourish or get any power in Germany, nevertheless I am bound to say that the opinion of the world should be made clear to our German friends—the Socialists, Liberals and others who want to restore the good name of Germany. It should be made clear that behind them in their efforts is world opinion, which, to a considerable extent, can be reflected from this House.
It is suggested that the new party is not one which represents the views of the Nazi party. In that connection, I want to quote something from The Times:

On August 29 this year a 10-man N.P.D. delegation visited the fortress of Landsberg, in Bavaria, and laid wreaths on the graves of executed war criminals. Speaking at the graveside, the leader of the delegation said: 'We remember today all those who, although innocent, lost their lives because of arbitrary judgment and the lust for power' …
Whatever its public attitude, the party is inevitably under pressure, especially where it is strong in Lower Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein, and parts of Bavaria, to pander to those who assume it to be a revived Nazi party. One of the key areas is Franconia, the Protestant enclave in mainly Roman Catholic Bavaria round the cities of Nuremberg and Bayreuth.
The other day, there was a television interview with a number of young people who were being educated in a school near Nuremberg. Some hon. Members may have seen the programme. One of the questions asked was what kind of history was being taught in that school, and the answer was ancient history and modern history since the war, but that not until a young person reached the age of 19 in that school was anything taught of the Hitler régime.
Thus, the past Governments of Germany cannot be held to be not responsible in some way for the recrudescence of this kind of party if, during the years from the end of the war to today, they have not utilised the opportunity of endeavouring to educate the children in all their schools so that they might understand the shame and the horror of the world against the activities of the Nazis and so that those who were approached by the new party, the N.P.D., would refuse to have anything to do with the policies with which it was associated—although it denies such association—and would hang their heads in shame if they joined an organisation of that description.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I realise that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) feels very deeply about this, as we all do. Those of us who have been to Auschwitz and Belsen, as I have, well understand what he is saying. However, is he not being unfair to a lot of German youth? Over the past weekend, I have been very glad to see youngsters responding to the rise of the N.P.D. and standing up for German democracy.

Mrs. Renée Short: My hon. Friend has already said that.

Sir B. Janner: I have already referred to that. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) was not in the Chamber at the time.
I want to make it 100 per cent. clear that what I am saying today is not intended in any way to be against the views of the kind of person to whom the hon. Gentleman refers. On the contrary, I hope that we shall support them. If world opinion indicates that they are right—that is doing precisely what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I agree with him; they are right—and if world opinion supports them in the way that it should have supported those who stood up in Germany against Nazism when the Nazi party began to rise, I think that they will find that they are helped in their fight against the revival of the horrible ideas which ultimately must come from the new party.
Let me explain why I think that. The leader of the party was approached on the question of the Jews. He says that he is not a Nazi. However, some of the persons who are members of the executive are amongst those who were actively concerned in these terrible events, some in high positions and some in positions of lower influence. When interviewed by a well-known correspondent in this country, their leader was asked, "What about the Jews?" He replied, "Leave me alone about the Jews. They are no longer a problem here. Only 32,000 of them are left." He denies that he is a Nazi himself, or that he holds any Nazi views.
Let me give one other illustration from what he is reported to have said:
Hitler only made one mistake. He lost the war.

Mr. John Hynd: What does the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) say to that?

Sir B. Janner: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman intends to deny that what I say is correct. The difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself is that he thinks that by doing this we are not helping.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Yes.

Sir B. Janner: I think that it is good for those in Germany who attack this party to know that throughout the world we feel the same about it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Last weekend I had the opportunity of meeting Herr von Thadden, to whom the hon. Gentleman has just referred. I was asked by representatives of the Social Democratic Party and the C.D.U. in Germany not to do so and I did not on that account, because in their judgment—and they are responsible men, as much concerned as anyone in this House about this matter—it was wrong at this stage to give the publicity which the hon. Gentleman is now giving to this disgraceful party.

Sir B. Janner: The same kind of arguments were used 30 years ago, and at that time I disagreed with the contention similar to that now being put forward by the hon. Gentleman. I am not saying that I am 100 per cent. certain, but I believe that what I am doing is the way to help those in Germany who are opposing this party.

Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): Thirty years ago we were turning our heads, looking the other way, and pretending that Nazism did not exist.

Sir B. Janner: That is true.
There are two reasons which prompt me to think that these people are a menace, and that their influence may spread.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is helping them.

Sir B. Janner: On the contrary. I think that the kind of national policy which they are advocating is to some extent being advocated outside their party, not on the Nazi side.
Let me refer to two planks of this party's policy. First, its members are advocating the ending of war crimes trials. I do not know what would be said in this country if someone were to suggest that in five or 10 years' time we should end the pursuit of the train robbers because we should by then forgive and grant them an amnesty. After all, what did they do? They stole more than £2 million. Would any Member say, or would anyone outside the House say, that we should not continue to look for and prosecute them?
The policies being advocated by this German party, and, I am afraid, to some extent accepted by some other Germans, is that there should be an end to the


prosecution of those who committed, not the offence of taking more than £2 million, but that of taking 10 million lives. This is one of the party's planks, and it is not altogether frowned on by others in Germany.
Another of the party's planks, which I condemn, and which I hope the German Government will condemn, is that compensation for the victims of the Nazis should be suspended or stopped. They say that those who have been broken in mind as well as in body by the Nazis should receive no compensation at least for some considerable time. I am not altogether sure that that kind of policy is not being advocated outside that party.
I know that the House will bear with me for having intervened in this way. A Motion on this issue has been signed by more than 94 Members. I hope and pray that the forces of liberalism and understanding in Germany will quickly crush this new party. I hope that German people will not be deceived by protests that these people are not Nazis. I hope that it will be realised that within its ranks and among its officers there are men at an earlier stage who belonged to proscribed organisations.
I hope that the protests which I have made—and I am sure that I am supported in these by many hon. Members in this House—will reach the ears of the German people so that those who are determined to crush this party will be able to say that the world is entirely with them.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Walters: The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) has spoken very movingly about the plight of the Jews under the Nazis, and nobody who has any degree of sensitivity, and I believe no Member in this House, could not but share his feelings about what happened under the Nazi régime.
Before that, the hon. Gentleman spoke about Israel and the Arab countries. It is, I believe, precisely because of the feelings which one has about the unforgivable things which happened in Europe in the 'thirties that there has been so much understandable sympathy for the new State of Israel, but I suggest to the

hon. Gentleman that it is wrong to think that among the Arab countries there is not some genuine fear of Israel's intentions. This may be unjustified, and I believe that it largely is, but it is wrong to dismiss it altogether.
There is in the Middle East fear on both sides of the frontier. During the foreign affairs debate in July I referred to the tension between Israel and the Arab countries and said that the policies of the two sides seem directed to a major clash, indicating that 10 years without serious fighting suggested a comforting impression of stability which was entirely illusory. Unfortunately, these remarks have been proved reasonably accurate by recent events, and it follows that measures to prevent a major clash have become even more urgent now.
One positive step which I believe could be taken is the strengthening of the United Nations presence in the area. At the moment, its presence consists of a corps of observers along Israel's frontiers with Jordan, Syria, and the Lebanon, and a force of about 4,000 men in U.N.E.F. on the frontier between Israel and the U.A.R., which includes the Gaza Strip. This sector, as hon. Members will know, had previously been the scene of savage raids and reprisals, and it is worth noting that since the setting up of U.N.E.F. it has been relatively quiet. The terms of reference of U.N.E.F. prevented patrolling along the three other frontiers, although it is precisely these frontiers which now produce most of the trouble.
The U.N.T.S.O. observers do not receive full co-operation from either Israel or the Arab States, and there is little that they can do when the incidents are the result not of some accidental and sporadic initiative, but of a definite policy by one side or the other. It would be difficult, but I believe not impossible, to alter the terms of reference so that observers on the frontiers with Syria, Jordan and the Lebanon could, if necessary, call on troops from U.N.E.F. to help them to prevent frontier incidents from becoming too dangerous.
In 1958, British troops intervened in Jordan. It is true that such open British support would be wrong today, and that King Hussein is right to rely on Saudi military support if necessary. On the other


hand, the survival of Jordan is immensely important to us, because it is connected with the stability of the whole Arabian peninsula. On 1st December, the Financial Times reported that British economic aid to Jordan had been reduced by 300.000 dinars for the next financial year. British aid for the year beginning 1st January, 1967, will now amount to 1 million dinars. American aid, also, has been cut.
I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Government are satisfied that aid at the reduced level is enough to keep Jordan's development programme going and to assure her that friendship remains. I believe that aid should be increased, if anything. Nobody would now question that in the Middle East we are faced with a highly explosive situation in which the danger of hostility between Israel and the Arab States is the dominant feature. A vacuum of power in this region would provide an irresistible temptation to aggression and a threat to peace which neither Britain nor any other Western power could afford to take lightly.
But Britain alone among the Western countries has a military presence in the area, based on Aden, and a defence treaty with the South Arabian Federation which the previous Conservative Government had agreed to maintain at the request of the federation after it became independent.
The present Government's decision to give up the Aden base and to announce that it would do so in 1968, when South Arabian independence was due, was a rash and premature action which has already had serious consequences and could have even more serious ones in the future. I was recently in the United States, with a Parliamentary delegation to the United Nations, and I visited Washington while I was there. I was impressed by the widespread feeling among informed opinion there on the desirability of reconsidering our decision to leave Aden by the date announced.
Instead of acknowledging defeat in the Yemen and withdrawing the Egyptian army of occupation from that country, as he undertook to do under the Jeddah agreement with King Feisal, President Nasser has kept the army there and has even raised its strength to about 50,000

men. The terrorist campaign in Aden, directed and financed from across the Yemen border, has been intensified. There is widespread concern in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran about the developments.
The conclusions that I draw from this situation are, first, that a British military presence in Aden should be maintained—not as an open-ended and timeless commitment, but as a holding operation until the South Arabian Federation can assure its own defence and independence—secondly, that the key to that defence is to provide the Federation with its own air force—which is a task that Britain should undertake—and, thirdly, that we should do all we can to strengthen our co-operation with friendly Arab countries in the area and with Iran, who have an important part to play in buttressing the fragile balance of power in the Middle East.
It is sometimes suggested that our supplies of oil from the Middle East, which constitute a British asset of great economic and strategic importance, would continue to reach us even if we withdrew entirely from the area, because the Arabs would want to continue to sell us the oil. This assumption may be correct, but I suggest that it is a very risky and dangerous one. Moreover, we should recognise that, in a way, the oil companies are the custodians of Western interests in the area. They are under constant pressure from the oil providing countries for ever greater revenues.
The pressure is continuous and the demands seemingly insatiable. The oil companies must not allow themselves to be pressurised into accepting unreasonable requests, and if they do we must realise that it is the consumer countries which will suffer vastly and in a whole variety of ways. The oil companies are, in a fashion, the middle men between the oil-producing countries and the oil-consuming countries. It is in the interests of the West and, in particular of Great Britain, that they should receive support.
I do not believe that we should be forgiven if we abandoned the area to terror and chaos by irresponsibly creating a power vacuum. Our friends, representing as they do the forces of stability, would consider our action impossible to defend or to understand. Our continued presence


for a time in Aden is almost certainly an essential requirement to guard against chaos and I hope that, together with our friends in the Middle East and the United States, we shall at least reconsider our timetable.
I now turn to the question of Britain's relationship with Europe in the immediate future. This is not a static relationship. The fundamental factors and influences, economic and political, as well as in defence, are constantly changing and the evidence is that the majority of these changes have not been in our favour. Those of us who believe that the future of Europe lies within the European Economic Community welcome the Government's recent statements of their intention to explore the possibilities of joining the Common Market, but we need constant reassurance that this is a serious intent.
The European reaction was clearly quite mixed. There are still plenty of Europeans—not only among the French—who are suspicious of our position. They must now be unequivocally persuaded that our intentions are sincere, and that we shall eventually wish to devote ourselves wholeheartedly to the cause of Europe and as a true partner. But before the actual period of negotiations begins we must strive that much harder to put ourselves in the position of the members of the Community and to understand their views and attitudes.
It is clear now that, despite a host of practical and political problems, the Common Market is moving ahead and is doing so at a rapid pace. Of course, the harmonisation problems facing the Community are innumerable, and the permanent official establishment at Brussels frequently does not see eye to eye with their political masters in the council of ministers.
These, to some extent natural difficulties, and the delicate question of moving from purely economic agreement to the wider political aspects, lends some force to the argument that Britain should not blunder in at the wrong moment. On the other hand, it would be disastrous if we were to use these problems as an excuse to delay further. Several years from now the three communities will be fused into one structure. Subsequently, the end of

the decade will bring the crucial phase, when the Common Market will yet again have to resolve the issues of establishing a direct budget for the supra-national commission and of giving power to the European Parliament.
I believe that it is vital that Britain should be in and should be able to influence that historic process. In advanced scientific application and technology, Britain has a tremendous amount to offer. One example is that of Euratom. It is disappointing that our current research agreement with Euratom is so narrow.
In more practical terms, we have access to supplies of evicted uranium, of which there are no sources within the Community at present. We are already supplying small quantities of fissile material, such as plutonium, for research. Surely the time has come for us to attempt much closer joint arrangements in preparation for our eventual membership. We should be able to capitalise on the desire of the member countries, particularly that of France, not to start major new research without Britain after the third research programme starts in 1968.
Finally, there is the vital matter of defence. One striking feature of the last few years has been the relaxation of tension in Europe and the diminished hostility between the Eastern European bloc and the Community. This does not, of course, remove the need for a coherent Western European defence strategy. We have much to offer the French, above all in terms of our nuclear contributions to the defence of Europe. Soviet fears, partly assumed, partly genuine, of Germany's access to nuclear forces can be placated effectively only if Germany and France were prevented from going it alone.
The M.L.F. concept is now redundant. It will be Britain's task to prepare a realistic set of new and alternative proposals. The wider question of our whole attitude to foreign policy is bound up with this. It is no excuse for us to repeat ad nauseam that the movement to greater unity in Europe will have nothing to do with our defence and foreign policy. Significantly, the Foreign Secretary's repetition of this claim in our debate last month on the Common Market was received with considerable hostility in Europe and the British Government are


now under the test of their own sincerity. Let them show that they have the courage of their convictions and are not merely seeking the narrower but still considerable economic advantages of joining the Economic Community alone.
Brita in has a historic function to perform in Europe. It is that of directing Europe towards a share in worldwide responsibilities. This is too great a goal and an opportunity for it to be fluffed. The Prime Minister is quite good in his tactical manoeuvres. We find him a trifle exhibitionistic at times, but tactically he has not been a complete failure. But he has been disastrously unsuccessful in his strategy, whether it has been dealing with the economic situation at home or in his more recent dealings overseas, there can be no question that he has failed and failed utterly. I sincerely hope that he will not repeat this pattern in his strategy on Europe, and that he will be successful. We wish him luck, but we will certainly watch his progress with special care and attention and wariness.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Henig: I also, should like to refer in some detail to the role which Germany must play in our foreign policy towards Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I also feel that it would be wrong if I did not give some support to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) about the danger of Nazism in Germany. Of course, it would be wrong if we in this House or the country were to panic and if, in expressing our concern, we were to draw undue attention to the activities of the National Democratic Party. On the other hand, looking back on the history of 30 years ago, no one can say that people in public life in this country and other Western countries then did their duty either by themselves or by the people they represented.
Let us be clear: they failed completely because they never took seriously anything which happened inside Germany. I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) is right and that the National Democratic Party is a nine-days wonder, but he may be wrong. I hope that, if so, we in this House and in the country will not be slow to raise our voices and warn our

friends in Germany—many of us have friends in Germany—that this is not just a German question, for the people of that country, but a question which may affect all of us.
The question of European defence arrangements has been underlying the Common Market debate ever since the Prime Minister's statement. It is widely recognised now that one of the reasons for the breakdown in 1963 was the Nassau Agreement between this country and the United States. Far be it from me to make any comment about the degree of diplomatic skill shown at the time by those negotiating simultaneously with President de Gaulle—who was not likely to receive this with any sympathy—and with the President of the United State for the Nassau deal. None the less, it has been a tradition since then that, somehow, this caused the breakdown.
It is now said to the Front Bench of the party which was then in opposition that they should not make the same mistake, but should go in immediately for some defence arrangements. Let us be clear what this means. The suggestion is that we go to President de Gaulle and say, "Let us put our cards on the table. We will go in for some kind of nuclear deal with you and you will let us into Europe." This is what people are talking about, so we should consider this argument as it stands.
Although a new Member of the House, I have been for some time a pro-European and active in the European movement and I personally would find this price too high to pay. I would, in that case, far rather wait until President de Gaulle himself—who, I understand, on good authority, is not immortal—is no longer on the scene. What would happen? France and this country would make some kind of European defence arrangements involving nuclear weapons, Fine. We are confident of what this country's leaders will do with nuclear weapons, and I think that we can be confident that La Gloire is no more than just a sophisticated joke.
But what will happen in all this to Germany? There seem to be three possibilities. First, we could have a European defence force with nuclear weapons, of which Germany would be a full and equal member. This will satisfy Germany, though I doubt very much


that it will make any one in Eastern Europe happy and it will terrify the Soviet Union. Anything more likely to keep permanent the split in Europe and Germany is hard to imagine.
The second possibility is that, although Germany helps to pay for this European defence force—after all, German wealth and economic power make up a good deal of Western Europe these days—Germany would not be in the defence force. I wonder how long the Germans would be content to carry on paying for something when they saw less from it than other Western European countries.
Then there is a third possibility, which seemingly has a lot of appeal. It is that Britain and France alone should have the nuclear weapons, a sort of Anglo-French arrangement, with the Germans being completely out of it—not a particularly good augury for our future partnership in Europe. The idea is that somehow we and one other country in Europe should make a package deal at the expense of the others, although this would not seem likely to make for stability. Considering these possibilities for our getting into Europe—the price that we might have to pay to get in—if one looks further, one comes up against all sorts of difficulties.
A second argument follows on. It is an interesting one, because a group of hon. Gentlemen opposite are, in effect, saying, "Let us make our defence arrangements with Europe, because N.A.T.O. is out of date; and we can then move towards winding up N.A.T.O.". Some of my hon. Friends also want to wind up N.A.T.O., although, to be fair to them, they wish to do so for rather different reasons.
Thus, we have a ganging up of people in different positions on the poor old North Atlantic Alliance. I describe it as "poor old" because in the eyes of many people the biggest crime committed by the alliance is that it has been successful. It was set up at a time when the Soviet Union was expansionist—which, I believe, it is not today—when Czechoslovakia had fallen, when other countries in Eastern Europe had been occupied and when it looked as though Soviet ambition would stop at nothing.

Whatever else it might have done, the North Atlantic Alliance has stabilised the position.
Twenty years ago most pundits, if asked to predict, where the third world war would be likely to break out, assuming that there would be one, would probably have replied "Europe". I very much doubt today whether anyone would suggest that, and the existence of N.A.T.O. is one of the reasons for this state of affairs. However, some people go on from there to suggest that because war is unlikely N.A.T.O. is now expendable. I argue that N.A.T.O. is not expendable. We have a balance in Europe and while it might be said that, under certain circumstances, that balance might be changed, to give it up for nothing would be dangerous.
There is another consideration, which again revolves around the whole German question, remembering that Germany is the exposed outpost facing the Soviet Union, expansionist or not. Germany will not be particularly happy at anything which, by weakening the Western Alliance, sees to weaken the guarantees which it has. In such a situation Germany would have two choices. First, it might say, "France is not doing much for N.A.T.O., nor is Britain. Will the United States do more than it has done before? Will the United States make us its chief ally"? And Washington would have to consider that possibility. I have never fancied a situation in which, for any reason at all, Germany became the chief ally of the United States, but I will come to that later. The second danger is that Germany would feel some inducement towards breaking the Western European Union and, perhaps, begin to acquire some A, B, or C weapons, which would create no happier a solution.
That brings me to the question of the British Army of the Rhine, a commitment which we have undertaken very much within the context of the Western Alliance. It is easy, and probably right, to say that the foreign exchange costs of maintaining B.A.O.R. are very high and that West Germany has not shown many signs of wanting to meet those costs. I am not surprised at that, considering—and we tend to forget this—why B.A.O.R. was put there in the first place.
B.A.O.R. was established there in 1954–55 because—and let us be frank about this—the French and others feared Germany rearming and being in N.A.T.O. unless there was a British military commitment. B.A.O.R. was, therefore, committed to that rôle, not to defend Germany but to make certain that the Germans did not become beastly again, and it is important that we keep this fact in the forefront of our minds.
It follows that this is a very good reason why we should keep our forces in Germany—both to stop the danger to which I referred and because, if we renege on our N.A.T.O. commitments, as the French reneged on theirs, Germany and the United States might seem like becoming a sort of Western axis, and, in view of recent developments, we should keep an eye on what is going on in Germany.
B.A.O.R. is expensive, but it is also expensive for us to have forces east of Suez and in Aden. It is expensive, and so, perhaps, are sanctions against Rhodesia. I have even heard it suggested, despite the great pretensions that some hon. Gentlemen opposite have for this country, that the cost of bringing sanctions against Rhodesia will be crippling to us and that we will be ruined if we go in for mandatory sanctions. That is a little hard to believe, but it seems to boil down to the fact that we must begin to define the rôle we wish to play in world affairs, remembering that we cannot possibly do all these things.
I have suggested that, as a stabilising force, we should stay in Europe. I say that because the cost for the contribution which B.A.O.R. is making to the stability of Europe—its cost in terms of foreign exchange or in any other way one likes to look at it—is remarkably small. However, I am much less certain about what we are doing east of Suez. Now that the confrontation between Malaysia and Indonesia is, happily, over, it does not seem that we have much more of a function there. There may he something in the argument that there should be another non-American force east of Suez, but I do not believe that it is likely to have much effect on what the Americans or anyone else in the area will do.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will elucidate on this point when he replies

because in the last few months I have heard two views expressed about the possible intentions of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. One is that there is no long-run need for Britain to retain a military presence east of Suez. It is claimed, from that, that we can freely cut down on our commitments there so that, perhaps by about 1975, we will have no forces east of Suez. That is a highly sensible view, for although it is wrong to lay down datelines, that would appear to be a pragmatic approach which faces the realities of the situation.
The second view is that there is something for Britain to continue to do east of Suez and that that "something" will remain through the 'seventies, into the 'eighties and possibly even into the 'nineties. Perhaps there is, but I very much doubt that we will be able to afford to do it; at least, not on our own.
We must have a clear look at precisely what we are trying to do in the world and get ourselves into a position in which, when we attempt to do something we can be certain that, at that very point, we can apply sufficient pressure to ensure that we will be effective. Whatever may be said about the past, I do not believe that we can continue to apply effective force and pressures in the Middle East, the Far East and in Europe.
If we join the Community, new horizons and possibilities will emerge. If we think that a non-American second Western force would be useful east of Suez, then that presents a new possibility. We may go to our French, German and Italian partners and say, "We have been east of Suez in the past. We have fulfilled a balancing rôle there, but we can no longer do it alone. We think that, for such and such reasons, it is important that we should maintain a European military presence east of Suez." Our partners might reply, "Yes", or "No", but at least what they decide will be relevant because Europe could be a strong, effective military force east of Suez if it so wished. Far be it for me to argue whether or not Europe should wish to be such a force, for that is hypothetical. I am merely saying that inside Europe we can begin to move towards a situation in which we can exercise ourselves in world affairs.
A similar question arises about the way in which we sometimes seem to go overboard on the subject of Vietnam, and here I take issue with some of my hon. Friends. One hundred years ago we could have sent gunboats to Vietnam to chase away the Americans, the Chinese and anyone else in the area.
That day has, unfortunately, passed. The Vietnamese war is, of course, the most serious menace at the moment to world peace, although it is not one which it lies in our power to do very much about. We can try to take the initiative to achieve peace there. It has sometimes been suggested that no one will take any notice of this country unless we dissociate ourselves from the Americans, so that we are neutral and are known to be neutral towards the conflict. This would lead to an imbalance, because our co-Chairman of the Geneva conference, the Soviet Union, would be no more neutral than we are at the moment. This is the kind of difficulty one is up against.
On the other hand—and here I come back to my main theme—I do not like the idea of this country adopting a "holier than thou" attitude. I cannot accept some of the rather slurring remarks made by one of my hon. Friends earlier in the debate about American public opinion. What would, in fact, be the effect of this country adopting a "holier than thou" attitude, publicly denouncing the United States, and saying that we should have nothing to do with them, because theirs was an appalling and dreadful policy?
Perhaps it would have no effect other than in making the gesture. But if it has any effect at all, what sort of effect would it be? Will the United States say, "The British must be right. We must withdraw immediately"? Will they come running to London and appeal to the Foreign Secretary? Will they say, "Quick, arrange a peace conference; we are ready to talk"? I really do not think so. Or will they say, "You cannot rely on the British. We are involved in something which we consider to be important, and they do this kind of thing to us in an area of the world in which they are not capable of doing anything".
If Britain adopts a hostile and critical attitude towards the United States who, as the most powerful nation, is naturally

the main whipping boy for everything—although it is not half as bad as people make it out to be—the Atlantic world will be faced with turmoil which, with turmoils going on elsewhere in the world, we can ill afford.
This brings me back to the point I was making, that France—and I have not the slightest respect for de Gaulle's foreign policy, because it takes us back to a bygone age of nationalism—is not an effective member of the Atlantic Alliance. The French have not fulfilled their commitments and today I do not think that anybody would really trust de Gaulle or the French when they give a commitment.
It is these issues, connected very much with German internal stability, and the danger to Europe of a situation in which Germany alone appears as the loyal chief ally of the United States, which I should like to pose in this debate. Within the context of going into Europe—on which all political parties are now agreed—we have to make a firm decision on where we stand in world affairs. My belief is that this country must and will go into Europe, and European organisations will then be the context for how we act in the rest of the world.
Although, in future, there will no doubt be a European defence arrangement going beyond anything we have at the moment, the time is not now ripe—again because of the German situation—for making widespread agreements of a nuclear kind with de Gaulle. I hope and believe that both sides of the House will not give any reasons for de Gaulle supposing that anyone in public life in this country is prepared to make this kind of nuclear agreement.
I am certain that de Gaulle would let Britain in for this reason. If he believes that any substantive body of opinion in this country is prepared to make that particular concession, then, unless we make that concession, he will again torpedo the negotiations. I am quite sure that everyone, whatever his political colour, recognises that this would be a tragedy for all of us.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson: I hope to confine my remarks to the Far East, but, at the same time, I should like to make a plea that this country should stand much more firmly


on her own feet in the field of foreign policy while at the same time remaining loyal to her alliances.
I was a little surprised when I led a delegation to the Liberal International in Copenhagen during the Recess to find myself accused of being a fellow traveller because I took it upon myself to criticise American action in Vietnam. Apparently the Russians think I am an enemy of the people, so I do not know where I stand.
Nevertheless, I do not believe that criticism of the United States is in any sense disloyalty. In fact, if it is constructive criticism, it is, I think, an act of friendship. We have suffered too long from a sickening sense of humility, and the present Foreign Secretary will do much to change that in regard to our foreign policy.
We have been very much the junior partners. I hope that we will pass out of this phase and even resort, on occasions, to using a little legitimate pressure on our allies to try to bend them towards our own opinions.
We have heard a great deal recently about our commitments east of Suez. We know that the annual cost of our commitment in Singapore amounts to about £235 million and over £70 million in foreign exchange. We cannot afford this—I am certain of that—but at the same time we have clear obligations, such as those towards S.E.A.T.O. S.E.A.T.O. includes, of course, Australia and New Zealand. I suggest that we might exert a little pressure on the United States and Australia and that if they want us to remain, at least for the time being, in Singapore, they should be asked to share some of the cost. We should use this as a lever on the United States and Australia, and possibly on New Zealand and on other members of S.E.A.T.O., to try to change their policy, which has been evident in the last few weeks, of obstructing the admission of China to the United Nations Organisation.
I should like to outline at least three reasons why I consider it to be extremely important that China should be admitted to the United Nations Organisation. The three are fairly obvious, the first particularly so. About 600 million people are in a sense disenfranchised from the only international assembly that works. Secondly, I believe it would enable us to

bring to the surface in the international forum the differences which exist between the U.S.S.R. and China. We could bring this conflict into the open. We might get some more news than we have at the moment about the depth of their differences, the territorial differences over Sinkiang and the area of the Amur River, as well as the ideological differences which separate the Communist world.
Thirdly, it is difficult to see how a solution to the Vietnam war can be arrived at while China is still excluded from the United Nations Organisation. There is the supreme difficulty of bringing to the conference table all the parties concerned in the Vietnam war. Might I suggest that if China were in the United Nations and, at the same time, an intention was publicly stated of admitting representatives of a reunited Vietnam to the United Nations, there would be the possibility of a solution by a third party resolution, using the United Nations, the U.S.S.R., and China as channels of communications to Hanoi without necessarily convening a conference.
I believe that the first necessity is, obviously, a cease-fire. This includes the cessation of bombing by the United States, and the necessity for supervision of the 17th Parallel and the Laotian border by an international control commission agreed to by the Vietnamese. They have already opposed the presence of a United Nations force, but they have not come out against the presence of an international control commission—the same international control commission should supervise all Vietnam elections. The United States would have to agree to withdraw, within a specified time, from the acceptance by all parties concerned of the international control commission concept.
I turn to what I regard as the second corner of the Far Eastern danger triangle—Thailand. I was there recently for a few days after accompanying the official delegation to Singapore, and I confess that I have come back with a very much greater understanding of the affairs in that area than before I went there. We were fortunate to have talks with Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and the Deputy Prime Minister in Singapore, and with others there who are well aware of what is going on behind the scenes. In


Bangkok I was able to speak with senior officials in the Western embassies; with Thai and British business men who know the underground very well; with General Vargas, Chief of S.E.A.T.O. and his New Zealand deputy, Mr. Wraite, and with members of E.C.A.F.E.—the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East.
Following on these talks, I want to make several points—some fairly obvious. First, there are tremendous opportunities for British trade in the Bangkok-Thailand area, and I am quite certain that Lord Rhodes will put that view to the Government. I think that the Thais would rather trade with us than with our main competitors there, the Japanese, for obvious reasons—a point that British business men might wish to take into account.
Another point is that the Americans are using Thailand as a base for the Vietnam war, and that, I suggest, indirectly involves us, because the United States of America, Thailand and ourselves are all members of S.E.A.T.O. A third point is that Singapore still features very definitely in the contingency planning of S.E.A.T.O. We therefore have an extra commitment to consider when we are wondering whether, and for how long, we should remain in the Singapore base.
Communist activities in Thailand, both in the north-east and down on the Malaysia border, appear at the moment to be contained, but we should consider the possibility that this is only the end of Phase I of Mao Tse-tung's scheme of guerilla warfare. That possibility should be watched.
It was made perfectly obvious to us that the Government of Singapore would like us to remain there, for the time being at least. They would prefer a British presence to an American presence in the island. Further, I suppose that it is well known to most hon. Members that we have an immense investment in the complex of bases of all three Services in the area. Therefore, although we alone cannot carry the cost of the Singapore base, and although, in the long run, we will inevitably have to withdraw, we should be prepared to remain there for the time being provided that Australia and other S.E.A.T.O. countries are pre-

pared to share the cost. It must also be remembered that if we get out of Singapore there is a real danger that it would be squeezed to death between its politically and economically unstable neighbours to the north and south—Malaysia and Indonesia.
After leaving Bangkok I was fortunate to spend two or three days in Delhi as a guest of the Indian Government. The area between Bhutan and Sikkim is, in my view, the third corner of the danger triangle in the Far East. The triangle also includes Burma. Not many people can go into Burma, but I met a British business man who is one of the few Europeans who goes in and out of that country, and he told me that the Burmese have tended to retreat from the twentieth century. This is the only consolidated opinion I could get on Burma.
The Indians are also worried about Assam—and incredibly fearful of the Chinese. There is no doubt at all that the 1962 invasion was a traumatic experience from which India has certainly not recovered. There is little immediate danger of Communism getting a hold in India, because of the depth of religious feeling but, because of that, the Indians have to pay for one type of security in terms of another.
They have vast and rather pathetic herds of uneconomic sacred cows. They have famine, and a vast storage and distribution problem. I suggest that if we were economically in a position to help India there would be two things, in a technical sense, that we could do. We could not only help with the techniques of human birth control, but could seek to persuade the Indians to extend these techniques to the sacred cows. By this means, religious scruples against cow slaughter might be overcome. Perhaps I ought to have consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) before flying this particular kite. This may sound a humorous reference, but it is a serious matter which, if remedied, would help to solve the enormous problems that exist in India.
A second method of technical aid, and one that we could possibly do more immediately, would be to help in the techniques of grain storage and distribution. I am informed on very good


authority that about 20 per cent. of India's total annual output of grain is consumed by vermin—more than enough to feed the thousands of starving people in Bihar and the U.P. On a bright moonlit night I flew over those two provinces, lying in the plain of Northern India. Looking down on them, it was hard to appreciate that thousands of people were starving while there is in the world sufficient grain to feed them. This is a problem of storing and distribution, and of persuading the people of India to cast off inhibitions and face up to agricultural techniques in the mid-sixties.
I return to India's fear of China. Hon. Members opposite may be interested to know that an Indian politician told me that if the matter of a non-proliferation treaty came up, he did not see how we or anyone else could possibly expect the Indians to sign it when they were almost certain that the Chinese would also refuse to sign it. I took that as a tacit statement that majority opinion in such circumstances would be against a nonproliferation treaty—which, incidentally, seems to me to be a very long way off at present in both the European and the Asian sense.
There is no doubt that this country is at present somewhat too poor to play the part it should do in helping the underdeveloped countries. We certainly cannot do it alone, but I think that all hon. Members would agree that as a member of an enlarged European Economic Community we could. The centre of gravity of the so-called confrontation has swung to the east. Europe, for the first time in 20 years, is regaining self-respect and standing on her own feet—although I do not under-estimate the inherent latent dangers of nationalism that have been referred to in this debate.
The Foreign Secretary spoke of our European commitment, and I should like, in passing, to express the hope that if we are working towards cutting down the cost of our military commitment in Europe it will not be done, for instance, by reducing manpower and replacing it with an increase of so-called tactical nuclear weapons. That is a highly dangerous conception. This is not the time for a hesitant and cheeseparing approach to Europe, but a time to join with France—the other traditional pillar of European civilisation—in looking for ways to meet

Eastern Europe, to lead Europe out of the wood, and to direct its latent nationalism into the right channels.
In regard to this Communist confrontation, I, too, like the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker), certainly do not subscribe to the domino theory of Communist expansion. Although I am as aware as most people of the activities of international Communism, basically I believe that China is in search of security, not world domination. I have always believed that the conditions for Communist progress are fairly simple ones. Communist progress takes place in the aftermath of a war. It takes place in an atmosphere of economic chaos. It is almost invariably motivated by an indigenous Communist movement, not an external one. It is an indigenous Communist movement which is usually inextricably tangled with the narrowest form of nationalism.
I have talked briefly of Thailand, Singapore, and India. In none of these three countries do these conditions of Communism exist at present. We can ensure that they never do by forging links of technical aid and trade and using all the means at our disposal to do so. In my view, we can do this only from a strong economic foundation, which can be obtained only by entry into the European Common Market.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in opening the debate, began from the proposition that we were committed to support the development of the United Nations. I was rather sorry that he did not develop this theme further before going off at a tangent and talking about N.A.T.O. and other matters.
I want to refer specifically to a decision of the General Assembly of the United Nations which was taken on 27th October of this year, which, I believe, is of very great and critical importance for that organisation. It was a resolution passed by 114 nations, with only two adverse votes, concerning South-West Africa. I shall quote some of the operative paragraphs of the resolution, which commanded the joint support of the Communist countries and the N.A.T.O. countries of the West.
The essential paragraphs of the resolution are as follows:
The General Assembly
Declares that South Africa has failed to fulfil its obligations in respect of the administration of the mandated territory and to ensure the moral and material well-being and security of the indigenous inhabitants of South-West Africa and has, in fact, disavowed the mandate;
Decides that the mandate conferred upon his Britannic Majesty to be exercised on his behalf by the Government of the Union of South Africa is therefore terminated and that South Africa has no other right to administer the territory, and that henceforth South-West Africa comes under the direct responsibility of the United Nations;
Resolves that in these circumstances the United Nations must discharge those responsibilities with respect to South-West Africa.
The resolution goes on to call the attention of the Security Council and other bodies to this decision.
This decision means that the international community has decided to assert its authority in defence of half a million people in South West Africa who have been disfranchised, oppressed and exploited by the very country which was originally appointed as their guardian. The decision is extremely important, because it must lead to a confrontation between the United Nations and South Africa itself. It is a challenge to both sides. It is a challenge to South Africa to accept the judgment of the world on its discharge of the mandate. It is also a challenge to the United Nations to assert its right to protect the inhabitants of that country if South Africa refuses to accept the world's verdict on its administration.
We do not at present know what South Africa's answer will be, or whether there will be any form of co-operation between the South Africa Government and such body as the Assembly may appoint to discharge the new function it has assumed. But if South Africa declines to accept its judgment, and to accept the authority of the international body, some form of sanction, some form of pressure, will have to be brought to bear to bring the South African Government into compliance with the world's decision.
In this matter, the attitude of the United Kingdom and of the British Government will be extremely important. It is well known that this country is a major external investor in South African industry.

We have a stake amounting to about £1,000 million in South African industry. Our trade with South Africa has been built up steadily over the years and successive British Governments have blithely ignored the coming collision which was bound to occur in view of South Africa's apartheid policies. We have gone on building up trade and, indeed, have allowed South Africa to enjoy Commonwealth preference long after the time when she became a Republic and left the Commonwealth. We also have military commitments in the form of the Simonstown base.
The question which will face this country is: do we support the United Nations? Shall we back whatever decision the world community takes to enforce its guardianship over the people of South West Africa, or shall we continue to take our profits and ignore the views and opinions of the international community?
One very important aspect of this problem cannot be stressed too strongly. One can argue about the competence of the United Nations to pass judgment on South Africa's internal policies. It is arguable, and it has been argued over many years that apartheid, the social relationships of the peoples within South Africa, is debarred by the Charter from discussions within the U.N. or from action by the international community.
However, this argument cannot apply in any fashion to the problem of South-West Africa, which has always been, and which has been specifically ruled by the International Court to continue to be, international responsibility. The International Court has ruled very precisely that the United Nations is fully entitled to carry on the responsibilities originally held by the League of Nations under the mandate system.
Therefore, if South Africa refuses to accept or bow to the judgment and actions of the United Nations on South West Africa, it cannot do so on any valid legal grounds and the United Nations will face the challenge either of enforcing its decision or of falling into disrepute. In this respect, we have to guard very carefully our policy and attitude.
I believe that if the United Nations were to default on its obligations to the


indigenous people of South-West Africa, if it were to fail to go forward from the resolution, to implement it and assert its authority, the African States would become disillusioned and would despair of the world authority, with possible fatal consequences for its future development. This problem is part of the problem of Southern Africa as a whole. The Congo has recently complained to the Security Council about the behaviour of Portuguese forces in Angola and about incidents on the border between the Congo and Angola.
Many African States have complained that Portugal is using N.A.T.O. arms to pursue the policy of oppressing the peoples in Angola and Mozambigue. Although one may reasonably acquit Portugal of apartheid or racist policies, she has, nevertheless, shown no inclination to permit her subject peoples in Angola and Mozambique to progress towards the kind of independence and self-determination which other peoples in Africa have now come to regard as their birthright.
I understand that tomorrow the House will debate in some detail the question of Rhodesia, and, therefore, I do not want to go on to that problem, although it is obviously closely related to the problem of South Africa and the Portuguese territories. I want only to say that if sanctions are asked for and granted under Article 41 this country will also do well to explore the provisions of Article 50 of the Charter, which specifically provides that if preventive or enforcement measures are taken by the Security Council any State which finds itself confronted with special economic problems shall have a right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.
That point was referred to earlier in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) and it is extremely important, because in making use of international machinery, we are entitled to ask that other States should support us under the provisions of the United Nations Charter. I hope that urgent discussions will he embarked upon by Her Majesty's Government on the possibilities of commercial or monetary attack on this country by those who are anxious to support Mr. Smith's régime.
I believe that Southern Africa is a testing ground for the United Nations and for world security. But it is not the only area in which the United Nations has a rôle to play. I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that he is inviting the active co-operation of the United Nations in the problem of the transfer of power in Southern Arabia. There is an excellent precedent for that kind of operation in the history of the U.N. The territory of West Irian in Indonesia was transferred from Dutch to Indonesian sovereignty by a special operation in which a small supervisory force of United Nations troops took part. I am glad to say that the troops were supplied by one of our Commonwealth countries, Pakistan.
That operation was carried out in a highly successful and civilised manner. I see no reason why a similar operation should not be mounted in Southern Arabia possibly making use of the same Commonwealth country that served so well on that other occasion. I am certain that a United Nations presence or force in Southern Arabia will do a great deal more to help the stability of that part of the world than the supply of highly sophisticated aircraft to Saudi Arabia. I much regret the Government's decision to supply that kind of aircraft to the Middle East.
Equally, I am perturbed and concerned by the logic of the Government's policy in apparently transferring our military presence from Southern Arabia to the Persian Gulf. I have not been able to obtain a clear statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on the extent of the military build-up now going on in the Persian Gulf, but my impression is that it is considerable and that we are building ourselves a substantial military position in that area. I do not understand the logic of abandoning the military position in Southern Arabia to build up the whole complex of problems over again in the Persian Gulf and I hope that this problem will be dealt with by the Minister at the end of the debate.
Action by the United Nations in Southern Africa and possible action in Southern Arabia highlight the lack of action in the Far East. We have had


some comments on Vietnam in the debate, and while I welcome very much the proposals which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made at the Labour Party Conference and again at the General Assembly, I could wish for a more vigorous diplomatic offensive within the United Nations as a means of getting those proposals on the move. I am glad that the speech was made at the General Assembly, but we should also have within the Security Council a vigorous initiative from the United Kingdom to get the machinery of the United Nations involved in the desperately difficult problem of Vietnam.
I find it difficult to understand what our unilateral military presence in the Far East is now supposed to mean. It is true that we have withdrawn a fair number of troops, and I understand that next year the process of withdrawal will continue. But it is not at all clear to me what the residual forces in and around Singapore will have to do, or what diplomatic influence they are supposed to exercise. If a stabilising force is required in that part of the world, the only useful stabilising force would be one brought together by Asian countries, and preferably under international command.
I believe that there is a possibility, if we would grasp it, of transferring some of our erstwhile imperial responsibilities to the United Nations by agreement, by careful negotiation, and using the kind of position which we acquired decades ago in Singapore and such places as a foundation for transferring imperial power to a new kind of power which we want to see developed—the power of the U.N. and of the international community. I do not underrate the difficulty of that process, nor do I suppose that it can be accomplished overnight. But it is a process which must begin somewhere and this country can give it a beginning. It can make a start because historically we have the residue of what are almost police posts around the world, which we cannot sustain militarily and economically, but which constitute a possible skeleton of an international service for keeping the peace, or at least supervising potential danger spots.
I hope to hear the Minister's views about the future of United Nations peace

keeping as the British Government see it. There have been some interesting initiatives from Canada and Ireland on the financing of U.N. peace-keeping forces. What are Her Majesty's Government's views on these initiatives, and how far do they think it possible for the United Kingdom to support them, develop them and follow them up?
The United Nations is mankind's chief instrument for preserving the rule of law, promoting peaceful change and fighting poverty. I welcome the Foreign Secretary's renewed declaration of faith in this principle, and I look forward to a foreign policy which will implement it in the years to come.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) said that he had had difficulty in acquiring any information about the size and shape of the British military build-up in the Persian Gulf. I am not altogether surprised. One of the main supposed reasons for our leaving Aden in such precipitate haste is to save money. In fact, it is intended to spend in the Persian Gulf over the next few years twice as much money on buildings and accommodation as we spent in Aden during the last two years. Therefore, from the standpoint of economy, it is hardly surprising that the Government do not wish to see the information widely spread.
I imagine that some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks will not have made him over-popular with his own Front Bench, from which in these debates I regret the passing of the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). I used to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, when he was Foreign Secretary, not only on his forthright exposition of British policy east of Suez, but also on his explanation and, at times, defence of what the Americans were doing in South Vietnam. Indeed, I often thought that, if there were half a dozen members of the American Administration who could put the case with the force and clarity which the right hon. Gentleman had, the American Administration would be in a much more comfortable position today.
As a sort of obituary note, I thank the ex-Foreign Secretary for the speeches which he used to make. I am sure that


he had nothing whatever to do with the rather squalid exchanges in the spring and early summer about the sale and use of British weapons in Vietnam. I am sure that that was entirely the responsibility of the Prime Minister. Hon. Members opposite can rest quietly. During my visit to Vietnam at the time of the last Recess, I found that British arms are not being used and, indeed, British arms are not needed.
Some weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting the Australian task force in Vietnam which is adding to the great Australian military tradition of courage and friendship. I asked the commander of the Australian base camp what items of British origin he had in his great stockpile. There are three. First, there is the floppy sort of hat which people use while going through thick underbrush. Second, there is an antiseptic cream which is useful for curing athlete's foot. Third, and far away the most important contribution which we make to the Australians, there is whisky.
In fact, the most important contribution which this country has made altogether to the Vietnam conflict in the last few years has been the supply of whisky. Our exports of whisky to this troubled country during the current year are likely to be as large as our entire exports to Vietnam, a mere three years ago.
Some of our contributions, of course, are non-alcoholic. Although at one time we were busy protesting that British arms could not be used in the conflict, we are at this moment, under our overseas aid programme, installing at the cost of several thousand pounds a night landing system on the main Saigon airfield, probably the most heavily used airfield now in the whole world and, as anyone who has been to Saigon will know, one of the main air bases in the entire country, which is used for very many military missions.
Rather oddly, we have reached a stage in our approach to the Vietnam battle at which we say to the Americans, "We will not sell you rockets for use in your aircraft, but we will spend several thousand pounds installing navigational aid systems at the airport which your aircraft use to guide them back when they have carried out their missions". This

seems to be a rather odd separation of functions.
There are other aid projects which are less inconsistent and less ambivalent. Anyone who knows anything about Vietnam will agree that there must be a long period of pacification and anti-terrorist activity after the defeat of the Vietcong main force battalions and the main force battalions from North Vietnam, and that during this period the Vietnamese police will have an increasingly important role to play. At present, we have a mission of half a dozen policemen in Vietnam helping to train the South Vietnamese force, and a very good job they have been doing.
There are in this country men who have the right experience and the right seniority for giving training of this sort, and I know that they would be welcome in Vietnam. I hope, therefore, that the size of our police training mission will be enlarged substantially over the next few months.
I hope, also, that we shall be able to undertake the maintenance of a teacher training college in that troubled country, because so many teachers in the last few years have unfortunately been murdered by the Vietcong that there is a desperate shortage of teachers. A proposal is on the table and I hope that the administrative difficulties can be ironed out and the scheme go ahead.
I hope that we shall increase the material aid which we give to Vietnam, but I hope, also, that the Government will be a little more parsimonous than in the past with some of their diplomatic initiatives. Too many failures devalue future efforts and every one of the initiatives that we have taken in the last two years has been a failure.
There is also a suspicion that some of the gimmicks that have been launched have been thought out because of a necessity to produce a new initiative to paper over the difficulties in the Labour Party. If one is making a major diplomatic initiative, it is not a good idea to launch it at a party conference at a time when it is known that the party is bitterly divided on the subject.
I hope that we shall play a somewhat less flamboyant part than we have during recent months. I am sure that we have


a rôle to play in helping to bring about talks and I am sure that we have a rôle to play in the conference itself. But I hope very much that the Foreign Secretary will be kept away from the conference, because I am sure that the rôle we have to play there is one of walking and talking quietly and that the ebullient personality of the right hon. Gentleman will not fit in to the rôle that should be rightfully ours.
At the moment, the right hon. Gentleman is off to make another initiative, a sad initiative, at the United Nations, on mandatory sanctions. The Leader of the House told us today that he had to fly away or we would lose the initiative at the United Nations. I am sure that it will turn out that we have lost the initiative already and that the form of sanctions introduced by the United Nations will go considerably further than the Government would have wished.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am following closely what the hon. Gentleman is arguing in a quiet way. Since he is launching a personal attack on the Foreign Secretary, who is not here, has he observed the usual courtesy of giving notice to the Foreign Secretary that he is doing so? If he has not, I would feel bound to defend my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Goodhart: I have said that the right hon. Gentleman is ebullient. I do not think that he himself would regard that as a grave personal attack. Nor do I think that, if I had sent him a letter saying that I intended to call him ebullient, he would have felt it necessary to delay his departure to New York so as to defend himself against this grave charge.
A great deal has been said about the damage that sanctions will do both to Southern Africa and to Britain. This evening, one might briefly give thought, also, to the damage that the sanctions policy may well do to the United Nations itself. I believe that there are only two alternatives. Either the United Nations sanctions will fail, in which case the prestige and power of the United Nations will suffer a damaging blow, or, if they are not to fail, then, in the not too distant future, we shall see not just a semi-blockade but even a full blockade of Southern Africa launched by the

United Nations and carried out in large part by the Soviet Navy.
The possibility—I think that it is now becoming almost a probability—that we may reach such a state of affairs in the next few months would split the United Nations more dramatically than any of the peace-keeping efforts which have been launched in recent years. The course we are now about to pursue is, I believe, full of dangers for the United Nations as well as for ourselves.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Colin Jackson: It is always a temptation in a foreign affairs debate to adopt a tour d'horizon approach, ranging from Paris to Peking or West Africa to West Iran, but I shall try to confine my remarks to the Middle East and some of the problems there, perhaps because the crisis in the relationships between the Arab States and Israel is mounting at such a rate that the United Nations may in the near future be much more concerned about a new outbreak of conflict in that area than it is at present in dealing with the question of sanctions against Rhodesia.
When I was at the United Nations in October, we had the reference to the Security Council of the Syrian-Israeli frontier dispute and a condemnation of Syria. Recently, the Israeli Government have been condemned for their actions in Jordan. It would appear that a pattern is beginning to build up quite similar to the 1956 situation, when the whole of the Middle East and world peace were disrupted by the Israeli-Arab conflict.
In particular, I am thinking of the dangers in Jordan to the Hashemite régime caused by the attack by Israel on Jordan, leading to grave discontent among Palestinian refugees on the west bank of the Jordan and to the situation in cities like Jerusalem and Jericho. Should this lead to the collapse of the Jordanian monarchy, to the disappearance from the international scene of King Hussein, one further complication could be an attempt by Israel, which has been represented in the Israeli Press many times, to move down the bank of the Jordan.
This would put this country and the West in an appalling predicament. There is no doubt that the Soviet Union would come to the aid of the Arabs and condemn Israel. What would be the attitude


of this country, the nation that gave to the world the Balfour Declaration and which has so many distinguished members of the Jewish faith in its public life? How would we feel if a second move was made by Israel?
I suggest that urgent preventive measures are needed through the United Nations and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to consider two points on the question of United Nations involvement. First, reference has already been made to the valuable job of the U.N. force in the Gaza Strip and there is a more limited observer force along the Syrian-Israeli frontier and also along certain sections of the Jordan-Israeli frontier.
When in New York I questioned whether we could increase the number of observers. We have had a number of examples of U.N. observers, some not happy, as in the action in the Yemen and the not terribly successful action in 1958 in the Lebanon-Syrian frontier dispute, but a thickening up of the observer corps, particularly along the Syrian-Israeli frontier, the mere presence of a limited number of U.N. observers, would he a deterrent. Very often these incidents occur not through some deliberate action, as with the unfortunate Israeli action in relation to Jordan, but through the escalation of an action by local commanders without any great self-control.
Secondly, I wonder whether, apart from the increase in the observer force along the frontiers, the Government would consider advocating as a sort of further sandbag provision the use of the U.N. force in Cyprus, not only for preventive action there, but for a possible movement to the South-East if there should be an eruption on the frontier. In 1958, when there was a grave danger of collapse, British troops were flown from Cyprus to Jordan. I do not think that eight years later we could now expect that to happen. The fear is that there might possibly be further border trouble which an observer corps could not contain. We have the Dkelia base and I have asked before whether we could turn it into the first full permanent U.N. base in the world, with Britain possibly making a contribution, particularly in the logistic sense.
I move on to the general question of armaments in the Middle East. The right

hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) referred to the supply of arms by the Soviet Union to Egypt and the Somali Republic. One must make a much wider survey of arms supplies in the Middle East. There is the supply of arms by the United Kingdom to Saudi Arabia and to Iran. There is the American supply of Lightnings to Jordan which has now been announced and there is the French supply of arms to Israel. I was recently in Algeria and saw the appalling build-up of Soviet arms there, including some missiles.
I should have thought that the time had come, through the United Nations, or the new British initiative which we hear talked about, for a conference on the cessation of the supply of arms to the Middle East. It is now reaching alarming proportions and when linked to the sense of frustration felt by the Palestinian refugee and to the Israeli tendency to say, "It worked in the punitive raid in 1956 and so we will repeat it in Jordan", one has a highly dangerous and inflammatory situation. In his book "On the Beach". Nevil Shute prophesied that the third world war would begin in a conflict between the Arabs and Israel. He was right about metal fatigue and we must make sure that he was not right in this sense, too.
I want now to refer to the situation further south, in the Arabian Peninsula. The Government have been asked to be more flexible about the date of our departure from the Aden base. I make a different suggestion, which is that we should make that date more definite. At present, we are told that it is to be 1968. It is difficult for our forces there to be absolutely sure about the time of the total wind-up and I think that they are right to aim for 1st January. We should give a definite date of departure. Dr. Johnson said that a sentence of death clarified the mind wonderfully, and the date of departure would give a further sense of urgency to the political negotiations in the South Arabian Peninsula.
We need Abdullah Al Asnag and Mr. Makawee back in the negotiations to speak for Aden. If they realise that there is a definite date for departure, then their sense of urgency will be increased. I would like to know what steps are being taken to contact those two leaders, who undoubtedly represent a considerable


section of the Aden population and of Aden public opinion.
I support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) about a U.N. presence, an idea which was observed in West Irian. He mentioned Pakistan. We have had success in the acceptance of the general principle of a United Nations observer mission to Aden, but Britain will have to go further and the United Nations will have to go further in some form of limited military presence after the departure of the last United Kingdom soldier. There can be no answer in Britain's remaining indefinitely in South Arabia until 1970 or 1972. The tensions in the area will remain regardless of a British presence or absence. What is needed is to interpose a force between the rival Arab Powers and let them know that unilateral action on the part of one or other would not go unnoticed and unchecked by the United Nations and world opinion.
There are two other problems in the Arab world with which I want to deal. One has already been mentioned—the political future of the Persian Gulf. I, too, find it completely incomprehensible that on the one side we should be winding up a British Army base in Aden and on the other side getting more deeply involved in the Persian Gulf. The slightest knowledge of history would make it perfectly clear that, once switched off Aden, the spotlight of Arab nationalism will be switched to the Persian Gulf.
At the same time the idea now fortunately put forward by far fewer people than 10 years ago, that one can secure one's oil supplies only by military means is ludicrous. A major military intervention in the Middle East 10 years ago provided a major disruption of oil supplies. It is in the self-interest of the Arab Gulf States to make their oil available. There is a world surplus of oil and we are now in a buyers' and not a sellers' market. If the Arab States so conduct themselves in internecine strife that they reduce their oil wells to uselessness, they deprive themselves of their own interests and of their own revenues.
A delicate balance of power in the Arab Gulf will have to be worked out. The interests of Iraq, Iran, and Saudi

Arabia, all oil-producing countries, will need to be balanced, but I am perfectly sure that a deepening British military presence will only exacerbate the situation.
I return to something mentioned by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie), the resumption of diplomatic relations with the United Arab Republic. This would be to the interests of London as well as Cairo, especially bearing in mind our departure from Aden in the reasonably near future.
There can be no reason, however, for not making an essential pre-condition of this the ending of terrorism in Aden. It cannot serve the interests of Egypt any more than it serves the interests of any other civilised Arab territory. For far too long we have found our relations in the Arab world bedevilled by the historical sense of misunderstanding with the people of Egypt. The Egyptians have a real affection for this country but the present generation, their fathers and grandfathers, have lived under the shadow of a British military presence. I hope that with these new initiatives—we have already had an example in the meeting between the Foreign Secretary and Field Marshall Hakim Armer in Moscow—we can make progress and achieve diplomatic relationship status with the U.A.R.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I would like briefly to follow the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Colin Jackson) in what he said of the Arab world, which I know slightly and which I love very much. I would agree with his assessment of the very serious nature of the situation which has arisen between Israel and the neighbouring Arab States.
I would also agree with him in what he has said about the valuable work done by the United Nations in that territory and in Cyprus and I would add that this points to the need for United Nations peace-keeping work to go further and to try to answer the hates and fears dividing people who might go to war at any moment as well as simply seeing that they do not go to war. If the United Nations does not begin to do that, then its work will always be sterile. It will always have to act in a peace-keeping


capacity, at great expense and great inconvenience. I hope that it will attempt this rôle in future.
In considering foreign affairs I feel that there is a considerable desire in other parts of the world and in some parts of this country to have us diminish our rôle in the world as a nation. One can catch echoes of this thinking in a debate such as this. Many issues, such as making full use of the United Nations or even entry into the Common Market, are sometimes called in aid of this diminution of Britain's world rôle.
That process can go too far. Like every other hon. Member I fully understand the economic advantage to this country resulting from entering the Common Market. But that the argument for entering the Common Market can be used to diminish our national rôle, is, for me, no argument in favour of our entry, but against it. This country has for years played a rôle on the world stage, not merely the European stage. In many ways, it has been a very great rôle. During this time we made many mistakes, but we made many friends and friendship is the best international currency there is.
Britain's entry into the European Economic Community is bound to affect that currency, and we need to be sure that the effect is not bad but good. We are advised that entry into Europe need not disturb these relationships or our position. I must admit my concern at the apparent lack of thought on this matter by the present Government. In the debate last year, on 16th and 17th November the question was raised whether there was anything nobler in joining the Common Market than economic advantage for this country. The First Secretary, who replied, said that greater wealth brings opportunity for greater generosity and that greater material wealth need not be an ignoble aim. I agree with that.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Economic Community would help us to understand each other better. That is very probably true. The first point about greater wealth and generosity is not always true. If I had to choose between relying for my livelihood on the generosity of the rich or the generosity of the poor, I would choose the generosity of the poor every time. It is not always the case that as people become richer they become more generous. Sometimes

the reverse is true, and there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the wealth of the Common Market and of the West as a whole can be a considerable difficulty in our future relations with the rest of the world, unless those nations concerned make it absolutely plain that they do not seek greater wealth for themselves alone, but for the employment of that wealth in the service of mankind.
We may think as we stand or sit here, that that goes without saying and that is what we all would all do but if it should sadly continue that while the rich countries become richer and poor countries continue to become comparatively poorer, it will require a drastic change in attitudes and behaviour by Common Market countries to convince the rest of the world that they really mean to help others as well as themselves. There is so much needing to be done in the world and so much this country can do.
Consider India. It is a great nation for which we used to hold very considerable responsibility. There are now conflicting reports about the seriousness of famine affecting Behar and other States in India. Some reports say that it is the worst famine ever known. Certainly, there are men dying of starvation. I am told that the other day an Indian newspaper had a photograph of a farmer dying of starvation in Behar on one page and on the other the news that President Johnson was holding up further shipments of grain, which, I understand, he has now released.
What is Europe doing to meet those famine conditions? For that matter, what are Britain and the Commonwealth doing? It seems a bit hard always to expect America to bale out the Indian food situation. America is a phenomenally generous nation, but she has a lot on her hands. I understand that Australia has wheat available, but that she would need money for it to enable her agriculture to expand further.
Have we taken some initiative to help mobilise the resources of our Commonwealth, or of all the nations which could play a part in meeting that problem? We are quick enough to take problems which some of us think that we should handle ourselves to other people to solve. Why should we not do the same with problems which we do not necessarily have the means to handle? Mobilising


the food resources of the Commonwealth and of the world, if possible, to meet the famine conditions in India is the kind of action which we should take straight away.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: I suppose that after the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday it was inevitable that the debate should be truncated. It has been savagely truncated. Instead of our having two days to debate foreign affairs, we are to have only one. I hope that it is because of this truncation that the House has been so sparsely attended. I hope that it is not because hon. Members on both sides feel that, although they are Members of Parliament they can do very little to influence Government foreign policy.
We should realise that all other policies are more or less subordinate to our foreign policy. I know that one can argue that everything depends on our economic viability, that our economic viability depends on our technological ability and that our technological ability depends on our ability in education. So it goes on. The whole lot can be vitiated and wasted if we do not get our foreign policy right. We have not had it right for the past few decades. We certainly did not have it right in the decades before the last world war.
I will not be tempted to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. WolrigeGordon), who spoke about the glories of Britain when we played an important part on the world stage. It depends on the angle from which one looks at the matter. I always found it very difficult to reconcile our glories with living in the valleys of South Wales, when my father and his brothers and my mother's brothers would go out looking for work, coming home and always being distressed when the dole ran out. I could not get a lot of warmth from the fact that, despite this poverty and distress, Britain was the head of the British Empire. It was not much encouragement to people, not only in South Wales but in Glasgow and other parts of Scotland and in Jarrow. Attempts were then made to sustain the same sort of arguments, and they were made to look ridiculous.
Going back further, I always found it very difficult, particularly as I had been led to believe that I was living in a Christian country, to reconcile the fact that we were at the head of a big powerful nation playing an important rôle in world affairs with the fact that I was reading about the hard negotiations of early trade unionists in the Welsh and Durham pits to get reinforced brassieres for women drawing trams underground on their hands and knees and about the employment of child labour. It is about time that we dropped this sickening argument, because we know that it is "phoney". What is worse, the rest of the world knows that it is "phoney". We should dispense with it.
I was interested by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner). There is, of course, a resurgence of Nazism in Germany, with not merely the same names and the same faces but the same tactics.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: indicated dissent.

Mr. Molloy: The hon. Member shakes his head. I feel very sorry for him, because after spending seven years in the Army at the time of the war my next five or six years were spent in Germany. Part of my job was to try to resuscitate democratic institutions. One of the things which we were warned about by the then British Government was not to have Nazis in influential positions. There was invented what was called a fragenbogen. People had to fill it in if they held a responsible position under a federal or local form of government and, later, the national Government. We discovered that, apparently, there were no Nazis they did not exist any more, and indeed never existed in the first place.
One of the contributory factors to this ridiculous attitude was that in the early 'thirties people were taking the same view as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). They were saying, "Let us pretend that they do not exist." We were awakened from that ridiculous dream by the bombs dropping on Great Britain. It is one thing to have a point of view, but it is another thing to maintain a view which has been maintained


twice before and which has resulted in the most debasing efforts which one nation has ever made against another race and, indeed, against many other members of mankind.
I do not say this from any ridiculous anti-German point of view. The situation in the world is far too serious—I know that it is not serious for some hon. Members opposite, but it is serious to thinking people—to indulge in being anti-American, anti-German, anti-Semitic, anti-Arab or anti-anything else. I hope that the world has learned its lesson from this myopic attitude.
I say this in fairness to German youth. About 1947 and 1948 an organisation was started in Western Germany which was contributed to by all sorts of young people in Germany—people in the universities, miners, shop assistants, scientists, and so on. They acknowledged that for far too long the jack-boot and the uniform had dominated German life, and they said, "We shall have no more to do with this. We shall try to eradicate completely the influence of the uniform, jack-boot and militant posture in our nation."
Consequently, later, when the allies split among themselves and when we in this country, under a Labour Government, I am sorry to say, started putting out feelers for the creation of a German Army, German youth banded together in an organisation called the Ohnemich organization—the "without me organisation". What German youth was saying in many parts of Germany—and this has to be said in the House of Commons in fairness to them—was, "If the British, Americans, Russians, or anyone else want another German Army, they can have it, but without me." Regrettably their views were pushed to one side.
This was a wonderful opportunity which people in the West and the East refused to grasp. It might well be that it is now too late, but I hope that it is not. Immediately after the war many Germans said to me, "Why did you not speak out and say that this Nazi movement is a vile thing? Why did you pretend that it was not there? Why did you negotiate at the last moment when it was too late? Why did you not assist us to strangle it at birth?" This is the

only safe thing to do. The Nazi movement now arising in Germany will grow. There is only one answer to it, and that is to strangle it at birth, or the bill which we have to pay later may be extremely excessive.
The world as a whole has got into a situation where the mere preparation for war is almost crippling it. It is having the same gruesome effect all over the world. In short, all the different pacts which exist, all the different defence measures, all the wonderful inventions either for dropping nuclear weapons or destroying the conveyor of the nuclear weapon before it gets to its appointed place—all this incredible, lunatic effort is slowly poisoning the remainder of mankind.
There is still so much to do to relieve hunger, poverty and disease the world over. When I see some of the pictures which come to us from time to time from Asia and Africa, I think of ways in which they could be turned to the advantage of suffering humanity. If it was possible to keep those pictures constantly before everyone who has a reasonable standard of living, any Government, irrespective of their political colour, would be banished swiftly if they did not pledge themselves to do something about it—even if it meant cutting down some of the ridiculous defence budgets indulged in by the Western world and, for that matter by the Eastern world, because the same criticism applies to both. Nothing disgusts me more than to see the parade of lunatic weapons on May Day in the capital of the Soviet Union. I know that they will argue that we started it, but argument along those lines must not go on any more. Instead, we should be arguing along the lines of who will stop it.
What is going on in Vietnam is an additional factor. The poverty which has existed there for years now has added to it all the ravages of war. When we hear people talking about solving the problem in Vietnam, I wonder where we are going. I hear those whom I understand to be called "intellectuals" talking about trying to find a solution to the problem. They talk about the difficult situation in North Vietnam and the difficult situation in South Vietnam, as if the South and the North could only get together, all would be well. They seem


to accept that the ideologies of the Communists and the Americans are deeply steeped in the respective sides. One would assume that all the people who live in the South of Vietnam are devotees of laissez-faire capitalism and that all those who live in the North have passed their O-levels in Marxism and Leninism. That is a stupid posture to adopt. The fact of the matter is that the ordinary people in Vietnam, like ordinary people all over the world, are the victims of the machinations of unscrupulous politicians.
If one takes that argument right back to the beginning, one cannot escape the regrettable conclusion that, in the ultimate, if one must pick an aggressor in Vietnam, that aggressor is the United States of America. If the Americans want to show what they mean as a highly-civilised nation, they should set an example other than by such trifles as ceasing bombing over Christmas. What an appalling insult that is to anyone who sincerely holds the Christian religion. It is all right to be a good Christian on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Boxing Day and, after that, back to the old devil. If the Americans want to advance their case as a civilised and Christian nation, they should say, "We will be out of Vietnam, and every American youth will be home to celebrate Christmas". That is a real Christian and civilised action which the United States could take.
I want now to make a few references to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker). Quite rightly, he pointed out that it is somewhat depressing when we give freedom to countries in Africa and Asia—as if it is ours to give—and they do not respond very well. I admit that it is a little distressing, but let us not set ourselves on too high a pinnacle. We in Great Britain did not achieve full democracy until 1927. There were all sorts of restrictions until then on whether one had the vote. The principle of one man, one vote did not apply completely in Britain until the General Election of 1927.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Would my hon. Friend not agree that in certain parts of the United Kingdom these conditions do not apply even yet, and the principle of one man, one vote is not acknowledged today?

Mr. Molloy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the gerrymandering the fiddling, the distinctions and the religious campaigning against ordinary people who are supposed to be subjects of Her Majesty in this country are disgraceful. We must not shout too loudly about the wonderful way in which we behave.
Looking back at our own history, for the last couple of hundred years we have groped towards democracy. We did not stride forth and achieve it. It was not there waiting for us.

Mrs. Renée Short: Many people died for it.

Mr. Molloy: As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) says, many people gave their lives for it. It was not achieved overnight. Let us not be too impatient about some of the developing countries in Africa and Asia who have not modelled themselves absolutely on the way in which we have behaved in the last 25 years. As Nye Bevan once said, "Let us not forget that they now stand where we once stood." If we can do that and show more patience, we may make a contribution to helping them.
It is no use trying to put the blame for everything on Communism. How much advance would many backward countries have made if Communism had not existed? How much has been given to placate them and get them on our side, rather than on Russia's or China's side? Would any of that have been done if China or Russia had not existed? Nothing like so much would have been done to help backward peoples if it had not been for the threat that they might turn to somewhere else where they could get equal assistance. That is not a particularly honest attitude for the nations of the West to adopt.
As I have already said, this debate has been truncated, so I shall turn finally to the situation in Europe as I see it. For a number of years we have had to put up with what are known as the N.A.T.O. Pact and the Warsaw Pact. The trouble with pacts is that people become enamoured with them. Earlier today one of my hon. Friends eulogised about N.A.T.O. It may be—I shall not disagree with my hon. Friend—that when it was originally conceived there was


some good reason—although I have never been able to understand it—why the nations of Europe should get together, for instance, to prevent the Russians from overrunning Great Britain and the rest of Europe. This may be why it was thought necessary for the N.A.T.O. countries to get together, but I think that it is wrong to remain blinkered to that idea for all time. People change, attitudes change, and conditions change, and in so far as we were instrumental in creating N.A.T.O., people on the other side of the Iron Curtain did not trust us, so they decided that if the West of Europe was to have N.A.T.O., they would have the Warsaw Pact, and for the past decades we have been glaring at each other.
The picture is not so brutal today. During the past six or seven months some welcome suggestions have been made both by members of the N.A.T.O. organisation, and by members of the Warsaw Pact. Indeed, it has been said that it is about time we established in Europe a "European Peace and Security Council". When I talk about Europe, I am not talking about France, Germany, Italy, that massive country Luxembourg, and so on, which people like to call Europe. They call it the Common Market, and sometimes they like to call it Europe. As I understand it, there are many more countries in Europe. In Poland, in Hungary, in the Soviet Union itself, and also in Rumania, proposals have been put forward to form a European peace and security council.
Those suggestions were put forward at the same time as similar suggestions came from Norway and Denmark, and in a remarkable moment my right hon. Friend the previous Foreign Secretary—I hope that it was not a lapsis lingua— said something which almost suggested that that was not a bad idea. Why do not the Government take up these proposals? I hope that my hon. Friend will answer this point when he winds up the debate.
Quite serious propositions have been put forward by various nations. If they all came from one side of the Iron Curtain, I could understand a degree of apprehension on the part of the Government about having anything to do with them, but the important point to remem-

ber is that these proposals for a security council in Europe have been put forward independently by nations on both sides of the Iron Curtain.
I think that that is a practical possibility. Why not establish such a council in Berlin? It might, in its initial stages, be a consultative council of all the countries of the Warsaw Pact and of N.A.T.O. Let us not jump at it too quickly. I think that if it were set up initially on a consultative basis, we could, by working together, by merely being together, make a contribution to establishing a form of our own little European United Nations. I do not think that this would be a bad thing at all, and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider this, too, when he replies to the debate.
Much has been said about the United Nations during this debate. It has not happened so much today, but there are some people who take every opportunity to run down the United Nations. When one thinks of some of the great problems of international politics, one realises that this organisation has not so far been the great success which we thought it might be, but it is the only thing that we have. I hope that the House of Commons will from time to time acknowledge the magnificent work done by the United Nations, through U.N.I.C.E.F., U.N.E.S.C.O., similar United Nations bodies, and so on. These are things of which mankind can be proud, because the United Nations is a world organisation, doing world good, and it deserves as much patience, tolerance, and generosity, as we in this country can afford to give it.
I support those on both sides of the House who have urged that it is about time we allowed the Republic of China into this world assembly. It is patently absurd for the United States Administration to pretend that Red China does not exist. I am not saying this because I am particularly enamoured with the régime which exists in Red China. A person like me would not last very long there, but the fact is that it is there, that it exists, and I would much prefer to talk to them, to negotiate with them, and to bargain with them, than to compete with them in flinging hydrogen bombs, and this is what it could lead to unless sanity is restored.
We must take these things seriously. Unless the British Government adopt a much firmer attitude in their negotiations with the United States they will be letting down not merely this country but the United States. I believe it was Lord Attlee who said that the most dangerous enemy is the friend who constantly and sycophantically agrees with what one says at all times. It is in our negotiations and discussions with the United States that this danger exists.
I hope that by making forceful declarations and having the courage to speak our mind we shall be able to make a contribution to the great world dialogue. Perhaps we can make that contribution in such a way that we will reach the frontiers of understanding not in the glare of a nuclear explosion but through the arclight of world understanding. This is a terrible and awful alternative, but there is no other. Unless the nations of the world are willing to get together and forget about such idiocies as different religions and different skin colours—unless we drop this form of insanity, there is a danger of our reaching the frontiers of understanding in a nuclear explosion.
This country and this Government, if they adopt some of the policies in which they used to believe—if they resuscitate those policies and have the courage to put them forward on the world stage—will be able to make the biggest of all contributions to peace by putting sanity back on the agenda.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: This debate is being held under the shadow of a great and deepening crisis in Southern Africa. But that is not the only crisis that confronts our country and this House. There is crisis in the Middle East, where, under provocation, the Israeli attack on Arab forces has caused much greater bloodshed than anyone here can have expected. There is crisis in Vietnam, in that terrible war. There is crisis in India, where famine is stalking the land and may claim the lives of millions.
But, above all, there is the crisis in Rhodesia. I believe that our country is facing a very grave and serious tragedy there. I will say no more on that sub-

ject now, butI feel bound to express my fear that our country will pay dearly for the failure of the talks between the Prime Minister and Mr. Smith.
Tonight, I want to talk almost entirely about Germany. The debate this afternoon and the one that took place in the other place have shown how deeply emotional a subject Germany is in this country. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) said quite flatly and without qualification that we are confronting a Nazi revival. He said that we should strangle it at birth. I am surprised to hear those over-simple statements coming from a Member who worked for some years in our Foreign Office.
We had a most moving speech from the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner). I pay tribute to him for the sincerity in which he couched his fears of a potential Nazi revival. I appreciate his sentiments for I have seen Auschwitz. In Dachau, immediately after the war, I saw marks on the steel walls made by men's fingernails in their agony. So I know what the hon. Member is talking about. Nevertheless, I ask him to accept that his description of a Nazi revival, together with that of the hon. Member for Ealing, North, is far too simple. It is not so easy as that to diagnose the N.P.D. problem.
I say this with some slight knowledge, having spent many years as a student in Germany and also working there in a most odd capacity for our Foreign Office. I have also spent much time reading Germany's literature and meeting some of its current politicians. I have, therefore, seen both that part of Germany which is half monster and that part of Germany which is half genius. I find it almost impossible to think of Germany without a love-hate relationship—

Mr. Molloy: Which does the hon. Member want to strangle—the monster or the genius?

Mr. Griffiths: All I would say at this stage with certainty is that Germany is a great Power, that Germany is the key to Europe, as the Foreign Secretary said, and that today the Germany people are moving into a new chapter in their turbulent history, in a most uneasy, restless, and, for the rest of us, worrying mood. I shall speak about three separate aspects


of this restless mood—first, the evidence of it, second, its roots and, third, its consequences for Europe and ourselves.
The evidence of German restlessness can be seen in the N.P.D. Yes, it is there, but let us not exaggerate it. I believe that the Foreign Secretary was right to take pains this afternoon to emphasise that the great majority of Germans are wedded at the moment to their democratic institutions. But the N.P.D. is certainly a sign of restlessness.
More important was the undermining of Erhardt's Government. This partly reflected the political "in-fighting" in Bonn, which has disillusioned many Germans with the very nature of democracy. But the main reason was that, psychologically, the Erhardt Government did not convey to the German people the same assurance of solidarity between Bonn and Washington, between Bonn and London and between Bonn and Paris, as did its predecessor, the Adenauer régime.
Another example of German restlessness is the current pressures in the S.P.D., the Social Democratic Party. Conspicuous among these are the disillusion of many of the party's left wing over the new Coalition. Many young German Socialists were opposed to Herr Brandt taking his party into the Coalition. Among the German Socialists' too, there is pressure, especially among the young, for a much closer relationship with Eastern Europe. Anyone who doubts that should have been in Berlin to see the enthusiasm of young Germans for the Brandt-Ulbricht conversations which were proposed earlier this year but which failed to take place.
Another example of restlessness is the incipient demand, from international Socialists of all people, who believe that it may be necessary for the Bundeswehr to be increased in size to compensate for possible allied withdrawals. I submit that here is evidence of the restlessness among the German people in all parties.
The second aspect with which I wish to deal is the roots of this restlessness and insecurity. Certainly, part of it is domestic, in the sense that there is a widespread feeling among Germans that the "Economic Miracle" has brought them a higher standard of living, but has failed to produce any new ideal or theme to Germany policy. The Germans are

a people who appear, perhaps more than most, to need an ideological content, a theme, to which they can devote themselves.
Many young people in particular feel that the "Wirtschaftswunder" has failed to produce a "new ideal" on to which they can take hold. But there is an international root to this restlessness too. For, rightly or wrongly, many Germans feel that they have been made the "mugs" of the Western Alliance. I do not agree with their sentiments, but I feel it right to report them to the House. Specifically, many Germans, young and old alike, believe that Germany has contributed more to, but, in return, has received less from, the Atlantic Alliance than any other member.
As they see it, Germany contributes more ground troops to N.A.T.O. than Britain and France put together. Yet is not treated as an equal, either in the N.A.T.O. Standing Group or in nuclear sharing. Likewise, the Germans have refrained so far from making unilateral approaches to the Soviet Union on the subject of Eastern Germany and Eastern Europe. This self-denying ordinance which Bonn has placed on itself has been ignored by the other N.A.T.O. nations, most of all by France, which only last week was debating Germany's future in Paris, directly with Mr. Kosygin.
I suspect that even the Common Market has been something of a disappointment to many Germans, for they assumed that it would rapidly be extended to include the whole of Western Europe—the E.F.T.A. nations and the Six. In this cause, they have made numerous concessions to the French President but in return they have seen only the veto of Britain and the failure of the wider Europe in which many German business men had high hopes. In short, the Western Alliance, in German eyes, has given Germany protection, but not the security for which it has yearned. Neither has it brought progress on Germany's other national goals, notably reunification and the wider trading area which it seeks.
I mentioned a third point, namely, the consequences of this new and disturbing mood in Germany. Two visible movements of opinion going on simultaneously—a complex matter as are most internal international relations. One of these movements of opinion is towards a greater


degree of German national independence. To some extent we can say that this is healthy in that Germany cannot, with its great power, be expected to adopt the follow-my-leader attitude, which has been the case for most of the last 15 years.
The other aspect of this return to national independence is much less attractive, namely, the admiration of many Germans for General de Gaulle. He has stimulated their nationalism while, at the same time, encouraging them to try similar overtures to the Soviet Union. One gets the impression that many Germans feel that anything de Gaulle can do in Moscow they can do better. This aspect of German independence is an unhealthy and dangerous thing.
Another movement of opinion in Germany is towards another "opening to the East"—something that has been part of the great German-Slav dialogue throughout history. This, too, has a healthy aspect, since little but good can come from better diplomatic and trading relations between Bonn and Moscow. We must all be in favour of that.
But there may be unhealthy aspects, too, notably the temptation for Germany to seek a new Rapello—something that, unilaterally, they may feel they are able to achieve in Eastern Europe. At the back of one's mind, one has the fear that one day a renaissant Germany and a Russia seeking to come to terms on its Western frontiers might once again seek to divide Eastern Europe in terms of their own national interests.
Where does the N.P.D. come into this swirl of forces? I believe that there is a danger that the N.P.D. could conceivably bring all, or most, of these diverse sentiments under the same roof. Should the next few months be characterised by immobilism within the grand coalition, which most people expect, and should they also be characterised by a spread of unemployment, which is by no means impossible, even in West Germany, it is possible that the N.P.D. could bring both the Right and Left-wing extremists in Germany into a wide-ranging opposition movement.
I say that this is possible. I do not believe that it is likely. Dr. Kiesinger and his Coalition may well propose to pros-scribe the N.P.D. It is more than likely

that pressure within the Coalition to eliminate the N.P.D. from German politics will become very strong. In my judgment, it would be a mistake if the Coalition Government were to proscribe this organisation. Because although I understand only too well the fears expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-West, I am bound to say it would be dangerous in the extreme if this N.P.D. movement were driven underground or left as the only opposition movement that could be mounted against German democracy.

Sir B. Janner: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that he is saying precisely what I tried to bring before the House when I was speaking earlier? If a party of that nature is allowed to continue on lines similar to the Nazi party, the world may be confronted with a similar kind of reaction in Germany which existed then. I am very seriously perturbed about it.

Mr. Griffiths: I recognise and share the hon. Gentleman's concern. We differ in that I believe that it would be a mistake to proscribe the N.P.D. at this moment and to create from it martyrs on which extremism can thrive.

Mrs. Renée Short: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what he thinks about the proscription of the Communist party in West Germany which took place in 1956?

Mr. Griffiths: I will reply to the hon. Lady immediately. I am not in favour of that either.
I come now to what Britain should do when confronted with these changing sentiments in Germany. The important thing is to provide restless and uncertain Germans with two simultaneous assurances. The first is an assurance of stability within the existing N.A.T.O. Alliance. The second is an assurance that constructive change in East-West relations can be achieved within the alliance, on a multilateral basis.
The stability which the Germans seek requires, in the first instance, that they should be able to see American and British ground troops remaining in Western Europe. German fears of American withdrawals as a result of the big lift capacity of the new aircraft, and


their fears of B.A.O.R. reductions on economic grounds, are real. They can be seen and felt by anyone who travels in Western Germany today.
I believe that we should resist such withdrawals unless and until the Soviet Union is willing to match them. Otherwise pressure within Germany itself for the Bundeswehr to be increased will become irresistible. The Soviet Union, faced with such a situation, inevitably would respond by increasing the size of its own forces and those of Eastern Germany. This cannot be good for us, for Germany, for Europe, or for the whole world.
Secondly, there needs to be an assurance to the Germans that the alliance itself can be used as an instrument of constructive change in East-West relations. This is of course very much more difficult, but it is no less essential. It means encouraging exchanges between East and West, including Bonn and Moscow, while, at the same time, avoiding any policy démarches that have not previously been agreed by the alliance as a whole. It is, of course, difficult to do this. But I think that the time is now ripe for new multilateral approaches towards the nations of the Warsaw Pact.
Our suggestions should not exclude another look at the possible thinning out of forces on both sides of the Iron Curtain. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary confirmed that British forces would not be reduced in N.A.T.O. without clear-cut allied understanding. I am also glad that he went on to say that there was room and time for reconsideration of the level of Forces. These things must go together. But there must be a new look at the question of thinning out forces on both sides of the Iron Curtain. I think it right that another effort should be made to extend the non-proliferation treaties and that there should be another look at the question of nuclear sharing within the Western Alliance as a whole. It is possible, too, that we could persuade the new Coalition Government in Germany to recognise the Oder-Neisse frontier. I know that it is difficult, but I believe that with Herr Brandt as Foreign Secretary it is possible. In return, we should ask the Soviet Union to give equal guarantees of Germany's present frontiers.
I can think of no better time than now to try these new overtures. None of them is inherently new. They have been around the European theatre for the last 10 or 15 years. But at a time when the German people have come to the end of the post-war era, when they are leaving behind the world of Adenauer and going into an uncertain future that worries many, it is essential that the Western Alliance gives them the assurance of stability within N.A.T.O., and the assurance that N.A.T.O., as an alliance, can provide an instrument for constructive change.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Edwin Brooks: In view of the time, the House will forgive me if I confine myself to the particular problem which emerges from the carefully-constructed contribution we have just had from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths)—the Oder-Neisse line. We have had exchanges on this subject on several occasions in this House, and hon. Members are familiar with the official view that no confirmation of this frontier can be given until a peace conference has been held and a peace treaty signed with Germany.
One can understand the reasons for this point of view, but it is now 21 years since the end of the Second World War and since this frontier was redrawn across the map of Central Europe. The hon. Member referred to the dialogue that has taken place between German and Slav over the last few centuries. If I may say so, this is rather a euphemistic way to describe some aspects of that history. Indeed, much of it has been a history of great pain and trouble.
One could argue that the geographical westward movement of the Polish nation which followed the Second World War is in some measure an act of historical retribution for the indignities which the Polish nation has suffered, and which reached an apotheosis in the tragic events of the Second World War. We have, perhaps, too readily forgotten that 22 per cent. of the Polish population died in that war and in some of the most appalling acts of genocide the world has ever seen.
We should recall that with the alteration of Polish frontiers we have seen emerge in Central Europe a nation that


is politically more cohesive and economically more stable than the Poland of the inter-war years that it replaced. There is no longer the awful difficulty that the Polish corridor presented to the political geography of Central Europe in the 'twenties and 'thirties.
It may be that the movement westward of the German peoples was a tragic and dreadful event—one does not want to minimise the undoubted hardships that have been caused to those who had to flee from the so-called recovered territories which now form Western Poland—but we can recognise that whatever may be the rights and wrongs of the acts which led up to the defining of this frontier, it is a frontier that everyone in this House knows to be irrevocable and final—with the one proviso that it is irrevocable and final unless there is a war to change its shape and character.
It would be inconceivable to envisage this frontier being changed by any other means, because the lands which have been occupied in Silesia, Pomerania, and the former East Prussia by the Polish nation are now an integral part of that State. They are necessary to its economic strength. They give Poland an access to the Baltic, which has given her new industries along that coast. They have provided the possibility of developing the great Upper Silesian coalfield for the first time in some sort of integrated fashion which releases its enormous potential and which is such an enormous bulwark for the economic security not only of Poland, but of the whole of East/Central Europe.
Therefore, I believe that the time has come when it would be not only justice but a recognition of the realities of the situation for the British Government to declare that, no matter how long it may be before a peace conference is called at which the eventual fate or destiny of Germany may be decided and a treaty signed, it is the firm view of the British Government that the existing frontiers of Germany are irrevocable and final and that they will not be used as bargaining counters at such a peace conference.
I make this point also, not just in terms of Poland, but in terms of Germany, too. We have heard some argument today about whether it is right

to characterise the developments in Hesse and Bavaria as symptoms of a resurgent Nazism. I am one of those who would be reluctant at this stage to argue that this is such a straightforward matter as some have argued. By one of the macabre and tragic ironies of history, the anti-Semitism which nourished Nazism in the 1930s is hardly today a basis for a resurgent Nazism in Western Germany.
Again, the conditions of material affluence in Western Germany today afford no parallel to the situation in Germany in the 1930s when so many of her people were stricken as the result of the inflation of the 1920s. But, then, history never repeats itself precisely. Although we can see all these contrasts, we are bound also to recognise the inherent dangers and difficulties which Germany and, indeed, Europe as a whole face today.
It has been said that this resurgence in the West German elections is a symptom, rather, of nationalism. Many of us, looking at Western Europe today, and not least our own country, can perhaps sense that there is a sort of hunger for authoritarian government abroad, that there is a feeling of disillusion with the processes and mechanics of democracy itself. Perhaps it is a particularly severe problem in Western Germany, given the way in which nationalism there may so readily take on the forms, and embody, perhaps, some of the principles, of those excessive forms of nationalism that came to power in the 1930's.
But, as long as we are not prepared to recognise the irrevocability of the OderNeisse frontier, so long shall we give nourishment and sustenance to those in Western Germany of the radical right who argue that this must be a bargaining counter, that this is not a final solution to the German problem. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds that, if we are to concentrate upon rooting out any possibility of Nazism, if we are to stop fertilising these roots of Nazism which undoubtedly lurk beneath the soil, then the time has now come when we should say that there is no future whatsoever in making the redrawing of the political frontiers of Germany as a whole something which can be a basis for political advantage in any West German election of the future.
In looking at this problem I ask that we should not be too much ridden by protocol, but that we should recognise that among those democratic forces in Western Germany who are striving to contain this evil thing which is once again beginning to emerge there are many who would recognise that their position would be immeasurably strengthened if the British Government, together with the Governments of France, the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., would say that at a future peace conference the Oder-Neisse frontier is not to be a bargaining counter—it is irrevocable.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: I apologise for limiting the speech of the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks). I should have liked to listen longer to his very interesting speech, and towards the end of my own I hope to touch on some of the matters he discussed.
I have listened as have many hon. Members, to many foreign affairs debates, and I have followed as a bemused spectator many journeys in fantasy around the world. Today's debate has covered a good deal of ground in every sense, but whereas in the past many of those loops around the globe seemed a little monotonous and apparently unconnected, however widely speeches have ranged today a new cohesion and connection has been apparent.
I believe that the reason is clear to many of us. It was mentioned by the Foreign Secretary and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), both of whom spoke of the interdependence of the world today. The technical advances of the last two decades have altered out of all recognition the sense of mutual interdependence among the nations of the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) pointed out, these startling advances have widened the gap between those who have fully shared in them and those whose share has so far been small.
It is only too evident that the future peace and stability of the world will depend largely on the willingness and ability of men and women who have won, and are continuing to win, increasing control over their environment to share that knowledge with, and export

its mastery to, others who are less advanced. The main impact of these great technological advances on the world as a whole at present is the astonishing acceleration in the speed of communications and the consequently accelerated reaction on one side of the world to events on the other. The days when an upheaval could take place in another country without the most profound effects at home, provided it was not one's next door neighbour, are long gone.
The existence of ideological barriers and the facts of colour and race have continually been divisive. Their main effect has been to divide, but less attention has been paid to their simultaneous tendency to unite and induce a sense of identification between human beings who had no previous point of contact. The dividing force of colour, which we have seen very clearly since the war, has at the same time persuaded men and nations that they are intimately involved in problems of which they previously had no knowledge.
Meanwhile, the economies of many nations, especially those which are most highly industrialised, have become more and more dependent on certain raw materials, some of which come from very few sources. For obvious reasons, we have today avoided discussing in depth the question of Rhodesia, which will occupy the House for the next two days. But in the context of that question, which is in all our minds, perhaps the best example of scarce sources of certain raw materials on which the highly industrialised nations depend is that of Zambian copper. All these factors have created a political and economic interdependence more complete than the world has ever known. In those circumstances, isolationism has become an impossible concept, especially for a country like Great Britain.
I understood the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) to call for an end to British commitments abroad, or, at least, outside Europe. This call might conceivably have made some sense in the distant past, but it seems to make none now, and, paradoxically, it is now that the call is being made most loudly. I believe, and I think that most of us share this belief, that we in Britain are irresistibly caught up in the mainstream—I think that is the correct


phrase—of world affairs. We are dependent on raw materials from many areas outside Europe, and we have an interest probably greater than that of any other country in a world at peace. By this I do not mean—and I do not think that anyone means—merely the absence of a third world war. All nations, presumably, have an equal interest in that. But it seems to me that Britain stands to lose more than any other nation from instability at any point in the world.
This continued and, indeed, more intense involvement in world affairs creates highly awkward problems for Britain because, while our involvement in world affairs has become total, our comparative ability to speak and act with influence has diminished. This is so partly because our power, not in absolute terms, but relative to that of other nations, has declined, partly because the area of possible conflict has widened, and partly because the nature and causes of possible instability have become, as we have realised only too clearly, more and more varied.
This is a debate on foreign affairs, not on defence, so it is not particularly appropriate to discuss in detail the proper means of, and the military provision for, maintaining stability throughout the world. However, my right hon. Friend concentrated our attention on three areas where, it seems to me and to many of us, I think, the need for clarity and comprehensibility in British Government policy is most urgent.
Reversing the order in which my right hon. Friend discussed them, I shall speak first of the Far East, as remote an area as can be from Great Britain and, therefore, offering the temptation for those of us who might be inclined to succumb, to divorce ourselves from commitments and responsibilities there. Nevertheless, I hold the strong conviction that in this part of the globe will come the main threat to world stability not only in the next few years but for the rest of the century and beyond.
My right hon. Friend and several hon. Members discussed specifically the conflict in Vietnam. I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy, if he heard them, will deal with the rather bizarre views of his hon. Friend the Member for

Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy). I shall speak more generally about that part of the world.
The creation of a belt of uncommitted States, backed, if it can be achieved, by a purely Asian South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, this in turn being reinforced by a powerful Commonwealth and American alliance in which Britain must play a part, have been stated from this side of the House as objects of our policy. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will signify his agreement. These should be objects of our policy, and they can be built on foundations which already exist. But the growth of a structure of this kind is certain to take time and, while it grows, we have to operate from the foundations themselves.
Our investment of power at the right time and place is necessarily limited, for reasons which we all know, but it is still capable, if applied at the right place, of preventing the later development of a much more dangerous and explosive situation.
If we are looking for examples, we find one immediately in Malaya, where the fulfilment of our defence commitments against Indonesian attacks played their part in frustrating the plans to seize power in Indonesia and therefore caused a setback to China's hopes of expansion in the area. It is, therefore, important that we have answers to two questions which bear the closest relevance to our present position in the Far East.
What is happening about the defence treaty with Singapore? The Secretary of State for Defence gave extremely little clarification when answering Questions on 16th November. Surely it is wrong for British troops to be stationed in Singapore with no clear definition of what their position is. Secondly, what is happening in Brunei? Are the Government conducting negotiations with the Sultan or not? If those negotiations are going on, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster answer a question which the Prime Minister refused to answer at the beginning of last month? It is whether or not the Government intend unilaterally to escape from the agreement with the Sultan.
The potential instability of the Far East is so great that I believe that Britain cannot evade her responsibilities and


shrink from her proper share in the defence of China's neighbours against aggression, and, in answer to my right hon. Friend and also, I believe, in order to satisfy the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig), who asked a similar question, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to speak with clarity on the present objectives of our policy in that part of the world.
In the Near East, the potential instability is equally great because of the dangers which would be created by a vacuum of power, with its temptation to an aggressor and a consequent threat to peace, which neither Britain nor any other western country could lightly accept. If one casts an, eye at any map of the area, one sees only too clearly that, by it geographical position as the gateway to Africa—of which we have had evidence recently—the importance of the Middle East, great as it is at the moment, is likely to increase further in future decades.
Alone among the western countries, Britain has a military presence in the area. I have often wondered, as, indeed, my right hon. Friend wondered today, whether the Government begin to realise the encouragement they are giving to the ambitions of Colonel Nasser by their revocation of the earlier undertaking and the proposed surrender of the Aden base in 1968 when South Arabian independence is due.
The Foreign Secretary spoke of steps that were to be taken to ensure the development of a "stable and orderly country" but, in common with a number of my hon. Friends, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters)—and I think that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) also raised the point—I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be more specific and say clearly that Britain does not intend to desert the area until the South Arabian Federation is able to defend itself.
This would not be an open-ended or timeless commitment. It would finish just as soon as the Federation can ensure its own defence and independence. Britain's responsibility towards the Federation's own air force are clearly of the greatest importance and so are steps

to strengthen our co-operation with friendly coutries in the area, particularly Saudi Arabia and Iran, because they can make an essential contribution to the buttressing of the fragile balance of power which exists in the Middle East.
All this would be explosive enough without the built-in tension between Arab and Jew. Apart from the various questions which the right hon. Gentleman has already been asked about this area, I have a number which I should like to put to him. My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie), my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South and the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Colin Jackson) drew the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the stability of Israel and its continuance as an independent nation and to the independence of other countries in the Middle East. What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to be put in the place of the Tripartite Declaration of 1950, which I understand all of us consider to be now moribund? I know that there have been discussions about a substitute, but I should very much appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's view about what ought to be put in its place.
The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough referred to a possible agreement to limit the supply of arms to Israel and her neighbours. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say something further about that, too. Thirdly, has any thought been given to the recent suggestion by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) about another initiative towards a solution of the problem of the Arab refugees? Finally, in relation to Israel and the Middle East generally and attacks on the frontier, the subject of a considerable portion of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North; to the extent that we rely on the United Nations at least to underwrite a guarantee of independence, have the Government considered asking for a change in the terms of reference of the United Nations Emergency Force in order to allow it or an expanded force to patrol Israel's frontiers with Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as well as that between Israel and the United Arab Republic?

Mr. Dooley: Am I not right in thinking that Israel has hitherto declined to accept United Nations troops on her territory?

Mr. Wood: There is substance in what the hon. Gentleman says, but I was asking whether the right hon. Gentleman had views about whether it would be possible to alter the terms of reference so that the emergency force could act more effectively in places where most of the trouble takes place. I understand—and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that it is not impossible—obviously apart from the considerations which the hon. Gentleman had in mind—for such an alteration to be made, with the result that observers of the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organisation on Israel's northern and eastern frontiers would be able to call on a formation from the emergency force to limit the extent of any frontier incident which took place.
Lastly, on Europe; I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the assumption made by both my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), in a very thoughtful speech this evening, that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs undertook that there would be no British withdrawal from Europe, except in accordance with a predetermined allied military plan. The Foreign Secretary seemed to agree that that assumption was correct, but I would be grateful if we could have confirmation.
To my right hon. Friend's powerful plea I would add these three considerations. They are, first, that any economies threatened by the Government in this area would hardly be the best way to convince the Six—and here I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury would agree—that in the Prime Minister's words, we mean business in our attempt to join the European Economic Community. Secondly, Britain's weight in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is needed more, not less, in the light of the withdrawal of France; and, thirdly, our N.A.T.O. partners—and this subject has had a great deal of attention in our debate today—including the Federal German Republic, see the reecnt success of the National Democratic Party as an added

reason for a strong British presence in N.A.T.O.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to confirm this. It seems to be a powerful reason for maintaining our position in N.A.T.O. rather than trying to decrease it, with all the other consequences that would be involved. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, will be able to satisfy us on this question, which I am quite certain he will realise is fundamental to the stability of the whole of Europe.

9.26 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. George Thomson): This foreign affairs debate has been sandwiched between yesterday's tragic announcement from Salisbury and tomorrow's debates in the House of Commons and the Security Council in New York. It has, therefore, been overshadowed by these events and has been quieter and more subdued than is normal with such debates in this House, though it seems to have been none the worse for that. I was struck by the same point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), namely, that despite the fact that we have been wandering widely over the face of the globe the debate has had a tidiness and cohesion unusual in foreign affairs discussions.
There have certainly been a great many interesting and searching speeches. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) dealt mainly with three areas, Asia, the Middle East and Europe, and set the tone for the debate, because everyone who has followed, in one way or another, has confined himself to the three headings given by the right hon. Gentleman. I would, therefore, follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridlington and take the same course, but in the reverse direction to the original voyage made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire.
The right hon. Gentleman complained about Asia and said that we appeared to have no policy for the Far East. I thought that it was a rather curious complaint at this time, because our policy in the Far East this year, which we inherited from the Government of the right hon.


Gentleman, of assisting our Commonwealth allies in Asia to keep the peace, has registered a remarkable success. The end of confrontation with Indonesia was in many ways one of the most remarkable examples that we have seen of the peaceful application of British military force. In the aftermath of that welcome ending of confrontation we are engaged in a radical reappraisal of our defence expenditure in Asia.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me if I could answer two questions about the defence treaty with Singapore and about Brunei. I have to tell him that the defence treaty in relation to Singapore is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is not a defence debate and I would prefer that the answer came from my right hon. Friend. Similarly with Brunei. This is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs and I would rather that a detailed answer came from my right hon. Friend.
I would merely remind the right hon. Gentleman that we have treaty obligations to the Sultan in Brunei and that it is the habit of British Governments to fulfil their obligations. I hope that that reassures him. Meantime, while reorganising after confrontation, we have, as a major part of our policy in relation to the Far East, been continuing our efforts to contribute in any way that we can to a peaceful settlement of the Vietnam conflict.
One of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) expressed the anxiety that in doing this we should not confine ourselves to seeking to reactivate our own rôle as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference. I assure the House that this is not in our minds. We do not mind what means are finally evolved to bring people to the conference table to produce a peaceful settlement. We have no vested interest in our position in this. The British Government are merely anxious to seize any opportunity which offers itself to make a contribution to this end, and I know that this view is shared on both sides of the House.
The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire went on to say that there had been a number of interesting and

significant developments among the Asian nations. I very much agree with this. What we have been seeing in Asia over recent months is a deepening recognition by the non-Communist countries of the area that the jealousies between them must be forgotten if there is to be a real attempt to develop in security and peace the vast resources of the area and an advance towards prosperity which the energy and ambitions of the South-East Asian peoples can command.
Consequently, the aim of the British Government has been, and remains, twofold. First, we seek, in collaboration with our allies, both those in South-East Asia and those outside the region, to provide the South-East Asian countries with the sense of physical security which, from their own limited resources, they are not yet at this period in time able to provide for themselves.
At the same time—I emphasise this—we are actively supporting all the efforts being made by the countries themselves to collaborate in defence and economic and social activity and to encourage the recognition that collective strength and collective resources in Asia as much as in Europe offer a greater prospect of stability than the sum total of individual efforts.
For the British Government, these aims are not particularly new. We were the originators of the Colombo Plan, which was, I think, a pioneer effort in co-operative economic and technical assistance. In 1964, Her Majesty's Government pledged £15 million to be expended over the next five years on technical assistance through the Colombo Plan. Only 10 days ago a major step was taken in Tokyo, when the Asian Development Bank was inaugurated with the active and willing participation of the British Government as a founder member. We are contributing £10 million to the capital of the bank over a period of five years. Our contribution is considerable, because we believe that this new institution will fulfil a vital development rôle in Asia.
A number of my hon. Friends, as is customary in foreign affairs debates, have deep and genuine doubts whether we should have any active defence and foreign policy associated with defence in the Asian area at all. I cannot resist saying to my hon. Friend the Member


for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) that I thought that I detected some inconsistency in what he was urging on me. He said that there was no longer a case for British defence activities outside Europe and then confessed that he would have used paratroopers to solve the Rhodesian crisis.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: At the moment, we have these forces at our disposal. It is quite likely that had they been used the Rhodesian affair might have been over. What I argued was that in future we should dismantle them. If we did not have them, we should not have been able to use them. There was nothing inconsistent in what I said.

Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend and I are old colleagues and we share the same profound internationalist views. I am, I confess, always puzzled that those who say that the frontiers of Europe must not end on the Elbe should feel that the frontiers of peace-keeping end on the Elbe. We take the view, as the Government, that, in so far as we can play a rôle in keeping the peace of the world, we ought to seek to do it on a global basis.
There are two conditions to that. First and foremost, we must operate in terms of our total economic resources. A defence or a foreign policy which undermines our economic strength by excessive foreign exchange expenditure is utterly self-defeating. So that is the first condition for an effective overseas policy.
The second one is that, within our economic resources, we ought to see our peace-keeping rôle in global terms, for reasons which I have just given to my hon. Friends. There is constantly the difficult task of striking a balance between what we might like to do on the subject of peace keeping and what we can afford to do, keeping the balance between our obligations in one part of the world and another. Certainly, it is the Government's view that our obligations in Europe through N.A.T.O. take priority. But it would be quite wrong to go on from that position to concentrate on our European obligations to the exclusion of everything else.
That allows me to move from the Asian area of our discussions to the

Middle East and to take up at once the points which were made by a number of hon. Members, among them the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) about the deterioration that has taken place over recent times in the relations between Israel and her Arab neighbours.
Tension on Israel's borders with the Arab States has been rising, and outbreaks of violence and armed conflict have twice been discussed in the Security Council in recent weeks. Her Majesty's Government deplore all use of force in this area, and our efforts in the Council have been directed to urging that view on those concerned and to supporting the United Nations bodies working to reduce tension, particularly the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation.
The hon. Member for Down, North and the right hon. Member for Bridlington asked, in particular, whether it was possible to strengthen the United Nations bodies there. I think that Her Majesty's Government have been foremost in encouraging the United Nations in peacekeeping activities wherever they have been practicable. In relation to the Arab-Israeli quarrel, the Secretary-General, U Thant, has recently put forward suggestions about how the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation could function more effectively. We very much hope that the Governments concerned will do all that they can to co-operate with the Organisation and to put these suggestions into effect. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) that the observers of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation operate on both Israeli and Arab territory.
In the meantime, we have been urging restraint on the Israeli Government and on the Governments of those Arab States where terrorists have been active. The disturbances in Jordan which followed the recent Israeli attack have been brought under control and the situation is much calmer. There have been no serious terrorist incidents in Israel in the past three weeks.
I was also asked whether, as a contribution to greater stability in the Middle East, efforts might not be made to reestablish diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and the Government of


the United Arab Republic. I would remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House on 28th November that, when he was in Moscow, he had an informal word with Field Marshal Amer, the United Arab Republic's Vice-President. It would not, I think, be helpful if I were to attempt at this stage to forecast what results may flow from that approach, but it is a sufficient indication of the desires of the Government in this matter.
I would only re-echo the words which my right hon. Friend has used and which I was glad to hear used by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Colin Jackson), in a characteristically well-informed speech on the point, that perhaps the most immediate step that could be taken to create the right atmosphere for the resumption of fruitful diplomatic relations would be for the United Arab Republic to use its influence to call off the campaign of terrorism and violence, which is one of the really big complications about peaceful progress in Aden and Southern Arabia.
Before I come to discuss the comments made on our policies in Southern Arabia, I should like to say a word about the general Middle Eastern situation. The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire drew attention to the growing Soviet influence in the Middle East and on the eastern coast of the African Continent. It is true that this influence has increased greatly over the last decade or so. I am bound to say to the right hon. Gentleman that some of the policies pursued by Governments of which he was a member greatly contributed to the opportunities which the Soviet Union had to increase its influence in that part of the world.
In any case, when we came to power we faced the situation in which several Arab States looked primarily to the Soviet Union for arms, supplies, and economic aid, and indeed for diplomatic support, and this situation has not changed greatly in the past two years.
The Soviet Union has strengthened its ties with Syria in recent months, though it remains to be seen how lasting this situation is. It would be wrong for the House to suppose that the Soviet Union has things all its own way in the Middle

East, any more than any other country with interests there finds that it has things its own way. The Arab nations are fiercely nationalistic, and will never, I am sure, consent to be reduced to the status of Soviet satellites, or to become the prisoners of a Communist ideology which is alien to their traditions.
There is a strong tradition of Arab Socialism in the Middle East. The Socialism preached by Arab States is different from the Socialism which we know in this country, but, equally it is different from what the Russians call Socialism, and I think that the Russians, having got involved in the Middle East, have discovered that their path is by no means an easy one.
Nevertheless, we are watching very carefully the developments in this field, and we are aware that quantities of Soviet arms have been delivered to Algeria, to the U.A.R., and to the Somali Republic. In fact, the U.A.R. armed forces have been receiving Soviet arms for a number of years, and are now virtually entirely equipped by the Soviet Union. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are watching this situation very closely indeed, but the question which arises, and the question which was properly asked by a number of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, is whether one can deal with this problem of the expansion of Communist influence in the Middle East by some agreement between the Western Powers and the Soviet Union to limit the supply of arms to the area.
Her Majesty's Government would be glad to see any effective international system of arms control. We continue to take the view that the arms race in the Middle East, first, contributes to the tension there, and, secondly, ensures that there is a vicious waste of scarce resources which ought to be used for construction, and not for destruction, but so far the Soviet Union, which really began the arms race in the area with the deliveries which I have just been mentioning 10 years ago, has shown no interest in seeing the arms race stopped, and as long as it supplies certain States in the area with massive quantities of arms, Western countries like Britain cannot deny to others the means of self-defence.
I must tell the House—and I am sorry to give such a gloomy analysis—that at present we see little hope of being able to take any further effective steps on our own in the direction of being able to get international agreement about arms control.
In the meantime, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley, who expressed anxiety about our arms sales to countries in the Middle East, that we examine very carefully the requests which we receive for arms, to ensure as far as we possibly can that those that we sell are of a genuinely defensive character.
I now come to the question of South Arabia, and to the points made by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, and by a number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were pleading that we should alter the timetable of our policy for withdrawal from Aden and South Arabia.
I would like to say, first, that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this area involves no question of scuttling from South Arabia. We have given proper notice to the Federal Government that we shall be withdrawing our military forces when South Arabia becomes independent in 1968. We are assisting in strengthening the Federal Government Forces in readiness for independence.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have contributed £5½ million towards the capital cost of new equipment, and are increasing our recurrent military aid to over £10 million a year—these are substantial sums—to enable the newly independent country of South Arabia to be able to stand on its own feet.
The independent South Arabia will have the best armed forces possible—including an air element—given the population of the country, its resources, and its ability to maintain those forces. This is the right thing to do, and it is not a fair subject for some of the criticisms which have been made of it. No country can rely on its arms alone to maintain its independence. What we, and all those with a real interest in South Arabia look forward to is an independent South Arabia, free from domination by any foreign country, meeting the aspirations of the people of the territory, and

accepted on terms of equality by its follow Arab countries and the rest of the world.
That is the only real guarantee of a country's independence in the long run. But in view of the questions that have been asked I must tell the House that we will not and cannot delay the attainment of independence for South Arabia in the faint hope of building up a military power which can withstand all comers. The knowledge that independence is near should inspire all political groups to work together for the future and this resolution will itself bring strength.
The right hon. Gentleman put his case very moderately when he sought to persuade us to introduce what he called a measure of flexibility. I must tell him that in my view, in the circumstances pertaining in the area, flexibility would be the equivalent of uncertainty. It would mean a degree of uncertainty both for the Federal rulers and the people of the country, and also our Servicemen, who are pursuing a very difficult task. That does not seem to us to be the wise or right course to pursue.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise what he is saying? He is saying that it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to provide the South Arabian Government with an effective air force. If he will ask his Service chiefs he will find that what he proposes cannot be done with merely an air element, because that is not an effective air defence force. That being so, we may as well open Aden to the Egyptians.

Mr. Thomson: I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said about this. Events are likely to prove our judgment right in this matter rather than the Cassandra-like judgments that he keeps issuing on the subject.
I wanted to report to the House, also, that progress is being made at the United Nations towards getting agreement for the sending of a United Nations mission to South Arabia. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reported to the House earlier, the Fourth Committee passed a resolution on 2nd December. It was passed by 100 votes to none, with only three abstentions, which means that there is hope that it will be endorsed when


it comes to the General Assembly in full session.
In addition, there remains the question of the composition of the mission, which must be appointed by the Secretary-General in consultation with the Committee of 24 and ourselves as the administering power. My noble Friend, Lord Caradon, will be pressing for the early appointment of this mission.
I want to say a final word concerning the Middle East about our redeployment of Forces in the Persian Gulf. Some of my hon. Friends have expressed scepticism if not incredulity at the thought at a time when we are withdrawing from the Aden base we are adding to our Forces in the Persian Gulf. The position is that we are making a small increase in our Forces, stationed there. The reason we are doing so is to carry out our commitments to Kuwait and other States in the Persian Gulf towards whom we have treaty obligations. Part of these obligations were, of course, previously fulfilled from the Forces available in Aden, and, to continue them, we need a small increase in our Forces.
But, in addition to that, the Persian Gulf is a particularly vulnerable area in terms of the conflicting interests there and it is, in the light of our treaty obligations, important that we remain there and seek, as we have been doing, to persuade the rulers with whom we have these obligations to co-operate together to provide for themselves better prospects of higher living standards and a greater degree of viability in the modern world——

Mr. Heffer: What exactly does my right hon. Friend mean by "a small increase"? How small or how large is it?

Mr. Thomson: I cannot tell my hon. Friend at this stage. The final figures have not been decided, but if he cares to pursue the matter by Parliamentary Question I have no doubt that he will find it an interesting and, I hope, rewarding operation.
I turn now to the European part of our discussion. The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire seemed to fear that we were in danger of falling into an inconsistency in our attitude towards N.A.T.O., in saying that we

believed in maintaining an integrated N.A.T.O at the same time that we are seeking foreign exchange economies in Germany The words which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary used about dealing with this matter "in accordance with our obligations towards W.E.U. and N.A.T.O.", and going through the machinery of these organisations, are, of course, a very solemn obligation, which we shall honour.
I do not think that there is any basic inconsistency in the present position, although it has its difficulties. Our position is that our ability to play our part in N.A.T.O. depends absolutely on creating a strong economic base at home, which, in turn, depends on neutralising our foreign exchange costs. The Foreign Secretary has already reported fully on the tripartite talks and I do not wish to burden the House with much more detail. I will say only that a considerable measure of agreement has been reached in these tripartite talks on some of the wider political-military issues and a report will be made to the Ministerial meeting of N.A.T.O. in Paris next week.
There are, however, several difficult questions in this political-military sphere which remain for further study. On the financial side—the question of the actual offset arrangements—a good deal of useful work has been done in analysing and comparing the balance of payments positions of the three countries involved. I would, however, be less than frank if I did not tell the House that the progress of the tripartite talks has been a good deal slower than we would have wished, but, in view of the domestic difficulties facing the German Government over recent weeks, we were bound to accept that, in the end, this delay was unavoidable.
However, the urgency of the problem for this country has not diminished. By one means or another, we must stop this drain on foreign exchange. I hope that we shall soon be able to agree with our allies on a satisfactory solution.
A considerable part of the debate was taken up with a searching and sombre discussion of the significance of some recent electoral developments in the Federal Republic and particularly the successes recently achieved in the elections in Hesse and Bavaria by the extreme Right-wing National Democratic


Party. In the light of past history, it would obviously be dangerous to dismiss the successes as of no account, but it seems equally important to get them in their proper perspective.
In the first place, the main feature of these elections has been the consistency with which the overwhelming majority of the German electorate has continued to support the main democratic parties. In Bavaria, the support was over 89 per cent. of the popular vote and both of the main parties, the Socialists and the C.S.U., actually increased their vote. In view of the long-drawn-out political crisis, which is now satisfactorily resolved, I think that we should regard this, in itself, as quite a remarkable symptom of stability and commitment to democracy by the German people.
Second, I should remind the House that there has been no evidence of any dramatic increase in the extremist vote. Since the war there has existed in Germany, as in other countries, minorities which have supported a variety of extreme Right-wing policies. The N.P.D. seems to be capturing and concentrating this vote, but without making any serious inroads into that of either the Social Democrats or Christian Democrats. For example, in Bavaria, the real increase in the extremist vote was only about 1 per cent. I am not suggesting that one can be complacent about the N.P.D.'s activities in the light of past history, but if one views the situation dispassionately one sees that it is obviously wrong to talk in terms of a Nazi revival or to regard the N.P.D. as a serious threat in present circumstances to German democracy.
I was in Hamburg a week or so ago and I found there, in my talks with some of the political leaders and others, a degree of vigilance and anxiety about these developments comparable with what has been expressed in this House today. In Hamburg, the N.P.D. vote in the last elections a few months ago was under 4 per cent., which is rather comparable with what extremist parties poll in a British General Election.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) mentioned, in another context, that it was now 21 years since the end of the war. The proper time scale in which to see this matter is

not the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West—the comparison with the 'thirties—but in this way: twenty-one years after the First World War the Second World War had already begun and Hitler was in power in Germany. Twenty-one years after the Second World War we have an increasing degree of peace in Europe and a broadly-based democratic system in West Germany. This is the real measure of the difference between the two periods and it is this that we should cherish and support in every way practicable.
The Federal Republic is a firmly established democratic State and is a fully committed member of the Western Alliance. The evidence suggests that this accords with the wishes of all, but a small minority of the German people. We must try to keep this fact in mind and not try to obscure it by keeping alive past animosities, however well justified they may have been. To nourish these animosities and to advocate treating Germany as a perpetual outcast can only revive German resentment and help to create the very situation which we, whatever we say in this House and whatever may be our views, should want to avoid.
As I said at the outset, this debate has taken place at a very fateful moment. Indeed, it takes place during a period of intense and important international discussions. Our latest European initiatives have got off to a very good start, with yesterday's E.F.T.A. summit meeting, on which the Foreign Secretary has already reported. Tomorrow, there is the Security Council meeting on Rhodesia. Next week is one of the most important Ministerial meetings in N.A.T.O.'s 17-years' history and during the Christmas period there is to be a truce in the Vietnam war. In January, the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary will set off for their first meetings with the Heads of the European Economic Community Governments in connection with their approach to the Community. They will, as announced, go to Rome and Paris. In February, Mr. Kosygin will come here and Mr. Rapacki, the Polish Foreign Secretary, will also visit this country.
These discussions involve a search for peace on many different fronts, a search for greater European economic unity,


for N.A.T.O. solidarity and for East-West detente for peace in Asia. In all these discussions we shall try to play an active part as a good ally to our allies, but, at the same time, without being afraid to play a distinctive and bold British rôle whenever we think that that will contribute to the a more peaceful and prosperous world.

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Bus Fuel Grants Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]

BUS FUEL GRANTS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend section 92 of the Finance Act 1965 so as to enable grants to be made under that section in respect of surcharges under section 9 of the Finance Act 1961 on customs and excise duties charged on fuel used in operating stage carriage services, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums pa gable out of moneys provided by Parliament under the said section 92 which is attributable to the making of such grants, including; grants for any period before the passing of the said Act of the present Session and after the coming into operation of the Surcharge on Revenue Duties Order 1966.

Resolution agreed to.

BUS FUEL GRANTS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(GRANTS IN RESPECT OF SURCHARGES ON BUS FUEL.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: All hon. Members on this side of the House would wish to hasten this Bill on to the Statute Book. After all, we are now faced with the real onslaught of

winter, particularly in a constituency like mine, in rural Lincolnshire, where people are perpetually complaining about the inadequacy of public transport.
I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will answer the question that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), during the Second Reading debate, when he asked the hon. Gentleman about his calculation. This Clause allows for the repayment in the financial year of £1·1 million to the bus companies. As I understand, and from our calculations, by 31st March, 1967, the bus companies will have paid out £2,443,000—just over £2⅓million—and they will receive in return £1·1 million. So there is a deficit on this Clause of £1,300,000, or £1¼million. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confirm this, because payment is, in fact, a quarter of a year in arrears. That is very important.
We are constantly told that the Government are pushed for time and that they find it difficult to get legislation through. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are continually wedded to the principles "All right, we will take away for six months, and then we will give it back". That seems to be the Socialist Government's principle in a big way, and it is a principle which has affected the rural bus operators very seriously. When we consider the effect of this Clause, and add to it something like the Selective Employment Tax, the bus operators are already giving the Government a loan of about £8 million.
On the basis of giving the tax and getting back the same amount, during that time they have loaned the Government £8 million, on which I estimate the interest to be in the region of £700,000. That is in addition to the deficit to which my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester referred on Second Reading which adds a considerable burden on rural bus operators. Add the investment allowances of over £2·8 million in a year and we find there is a very heavy burden placed on rural bus operators.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put rural bus companies back into the position in which they were in 1964, under a Conservative Government, then all of us would like to see a greater rebate than is available in the Bill. In saying that, we on this side of the Committee would


certainly wish to hasten the Bill on to the Statute Book. However, we feel that this Clause does too little not soon enough and at great expense to the rural bus operators.

Mr. Peter Bessell: I have no wish to delay the Committee. I should merely like to say, on my own behalf and on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, that we give a very cordial welcome to the provisions contained in the Bill. I know from my own experience in a large and scattered constituency that the plight of the rural bus operators is very serious. I realise only too well the difficulties they have in maintaining their services to the public. The Bill will go a considerable distance towards assisting them to maintain efficient and effective operations in the rural areas. It does not go as far as we would wish, but I hope that the Government will later be able to introduce additional measures to give further assistance to rural bus operators. Meanwhile, I am sure that the Bill has the blessing of all hon. Members.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Minister will recall that during the Second Reading debate, and in our discussion of the Money Resolution, a number of questions were put to him which, I have no doubt, he intends to answer this evening. For his convenience I would refresh his mind on the two or three things about which I asked him for an answer at this stage or on Report.
The first question relates to the precise sum of money to be rebated. There was some question whether it was to be £1·1 million or £1·25 million. Secondly, I asked him how soon the bus operators could expect to start getting their money back. The operators in my constituency are right up against it. Some of them have withdrawn routes, but I hope to be able to twist their arms a little to get them to restore some routes on the grounds that the money the right hon. Gentleman has pledged will soon be forthcoming.
My third question related to the procedure by which they will be able to obtain rebate. I have looked up in the Finance Act of, I think, 1961—when this rebate was first outlined—the type of

form operators must complete to get the money back. I hope that for the convenience of the operators and of the House the Minister will say precisely how application should be made.
My last point concerned the view held very strongly on this side that although the Bill is welcomed in other respects, it does not go far enough. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that it will be possible for owners and operators—not necessarily stage operators—who carry school children to have rebated the charges that have been placed——

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Gentleman's first three questions were perfectly in order. His present question would be in order on Second Reading, but not on the Question. That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Griffiths: I am afraid, Mr. Irving, that at this hour my mental alertness is insufficient to show me the way round your Ruling, so I had better sit down.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): May I first welcome the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) to our discussions. I gladly give the answers which I promised to give at this stage. The position is that the Government are continuing the policy of discriminating in favour of public transport operators which they started in 1964 to ensure that any increase in fuel duty would not be imposed on stage operators. That means that on the basis of the Budget of 1964 we are, at the moment, annually rebating the sum of £4½ million to the public stage operators of transport, in respect of the 6d. per gallon Budget increase.
Let me now lay out the arithmetic quite clearly; and I will be glad to answer questions on it because there are some complicated calculations, as was apparent last week. In July, the surcharge on the fuel duty was imposed. The cost per annum of rebating to the stage operators of public transport the 3·9d. per gallon which was involved would be £2·9 million. That is the annual cost and it is what we are concerned with in the Clause.
As the surcharge was payable from 21st July, the reckonable period during


the year up to the end of the financial year—that is, the end of March, 1967—is 36 weeks. This works out for this year at a rebate, in addition to the sum I have mentioned for the 6d. per gallon for the emergency Budget in the autumn of 1964, of an additional £2 million. That is roughly the global sum.
A lesser sum is provided for in the Bill, for the following reasons. I will read this out very carefully, because I want to be completely accurate, for the sake of the record. The grants to operators are paid for fixed 12-week periods on the basis of claims made on definite forms. The fixed 12-week periods in this financial year—that is, in relation to the surcharge made in July, 1966—end on 9th October, 1966, 1st January, 1967, and 26th March, 1967.
Claims for the period ending 26th March, 1967, are not likely to be submitted in this financial year—that is obvious—or to be settled. Thus, the claims requiring payment in this financial year, we calculate, will be, not for the 36 weeks which are involved, but for the 24 weeks from 21st July, 1966, to 1st January, 1967. That, in fact—I am sorry to bemuse hon. Members—would amount to £1·33 million.
We come now to a further qualification, On the basis of our experience of rebating the 6d. per gallon which was added to the fuel duty in the autumn of 1964, we know that some operators are a little late in submitting their claims, and, therefore, that the realistic estimate of what we will pay in this financial year will be about £¼ million less than the £1·33 million which we recognise will be due to operators. That is how we arrive at the £1·1 million.
Let me be quite clear. The Clause enables the Government to repay in full the surcharge on the duty; and, therefore, if the operators prove to be more efficient and expeditious in the submission of their claims, we would expect by the end of this financial year to have paid claims amounting to £1·33 million in the fashion I have explained. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, on a realistic appreciation of what has happened up to now in the delayed submission of certain claims, gives £1·1 million as the total of claims which we think

we shall have to meet in this financial year up to next April; but all the other claims will be met in the next financial year, so that the whole of the surcharge will be rebated to public transport operators. I therefore assure the Committee that all those claims will be met as soon as they are submitted.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Everybody appreciates that we want to pass the Bill through the House as quickly as possible, and that the sooner we do so the sooner we shall benefit the operators of public transport whom the Government wish to discriminate in favour of. Therefore, all the reasons for the Bill having been explained to the House, I hope that the House will give it a Third Reading very rapidly.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I wish to place on record my own gratitude to the Minister and to his civil servants who are producing so expeditiously the very complicated but, to me, quite comprehensive explanation of the apparent discrepancies to which we drew attention the other night. I am entirely satisfied by the explanation which the hon. Gentleman has placed before the House, and I am very glad that he has done so.

Mr. Kimball: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his welcome, but I cannot let him get away with the remarks he has just made about "discriminating in favour of." We feel very strongly on this side of the House that while we are very grateful for the measures that he has taken the Government have already discriminated heavily against the rural bus operators. I was very glad to hear him say, at the conclusion of the debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, admit that the mathematics of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) were dead right on this issue and that we have accounted for the missing £1·345 million.
I used to partake, and still do so regularly, in agricultural debates. I should have thought that the reasons the money will be outsanding when the operators complete their claims on 26th March is simply that many of them work so hard that it is very difficult for them to sit down in the evening and fill in the mass of forms that now arrive from the Government. Many work so hard that until the end of the year they probably do not realise exactly how much the delay in filling in the forms is costing them.
The main point I wish to make on Third Reading is that taking money away from people and expecting them to claim it back when interest rates are as high as they are is extremely expensive for ordinary people. It is one more burden the Government are inflicting on them.
All the same, I welcome the Bill and hope that we shall shortly begin to benefit from it.

Mr. Swingler: I appreciate the demand of hon. Members opposite for a much higher standard in relation to public transport than that to which they have previously been accustomed. I am very glad to represent a Government

which, for the first time, has discriminated under the tax system in favour of public transport.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

AGRICULTURE [MONEY] (No. 2)

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to matters connected with agriculture, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of grants—

(a)towards expenditure incurred on or after 17th January, 1966 or on in connection with equipment, plant or machinery used or to be used wholly or in part for the purposes of an agricultural business, on improvements to land comprised in such a business, or in the provision of vehicles;
(b)by way of supplement to grants made in respect of any cost or expenditure under any enactment.—[Mr. Hoy.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, CARDIFF (BOUNDARIES)

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Cardiff Order 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 1310), dated 17th October 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th October, be annulled.
Whatever my personal feelings about this Order, which is opposed by so many of my constituents in the areas affected, I should be failing in my duty if I did not oppose it tonight. The general effect of the Order is to take away from the area of the Cardiff Rural District Council about 52 per cent. of its population and 51 per cent. of its rateable value. This is drastic treatment for any local authority and ought not to be undertaken if such a step is at all avoidable and unless the case is unanswerable. The areas affected would likewise be subtracted from the administrative County of Glamorgan and added to the City of Cardiff.
With respect, I submit that one unfortunate characteristic of our present procedure is that the right hon. Gentleman who presents the Order will have the support tonight of many hon. Members who cannot know much about the circumstances and subject matter which we are considering. It will not surprise the House if I say that the Order is strongly opposed by the Glamorgan County Council and the Cardiff Rural District Council.
The Minister may insist that careful consideration has been given to all the arguments in support of and against the Order, but many of my constituents feel that too little heed has been paid to one of the most powerful considerations of all, namely, the wishes of the inhabitants of the areas affected. The people of the areas affected have demonstrated their desire to remain in the County of Glamorgan and the area of Cardiff Rural District Council in overwhelming fashion.
At a referendum taken in June, 1961, 84 per cent. of the local government electors in Whitchurch voted, a remarkably high proportion of persons in any

local government area to vote, and 91 per cent. of those voting voted against inclusion in the City of Cardiff. Likewise, in the adjacent area of Rhiwbina 83 per cent. of all local government electors voted. Again, this figure may well be compared with the average poll at a local election, which often reaches no more than a third of that percentage. Of those who voted, 90 per cent. voted against inclusion in the City of Cardiff. Comparable voting resulted in the other areas affected, too.
My constituents find it impossible to understand—I ask the hon. Gentleman to note this—why such drastic changes should be pushed forward now. At this moment, a Royal Commission is considering possible major local government changes in England, and the Government are themselves engaged in an appraisal of the future organisation of local government throughout Wales.
It is possible that this appraisal may lead to large scale changes in our present local government areas in England and in Wales. The Government themselves have considered these possible changes as grounds for refusing other piecemeal alterations to certain local authority boundaries. I can cite an example in South Wales, where the Caerphilly Urban District Council recently sought to obtain inclusion in its area of a relatively small adjoining area, Lansbury Park, in which it had erected local authority dwellings and which is on the very edge of the town of Caerphilly. The Secretary of State, however, ruled that such a transfer must await the general proposals for local government in that small case. My constituents cannot understand why, in this context, the right hon. Gentleman seeks to hasten the much larger transfer of these areas now affected by the Cardiff Order.
It is acknowledged, of course, that the proposed transfer would confer some useful benefits and advantages to the city. It is pointed out by many of my constituents that those benefits will not, however, compare with the damage and injury to be inflicted upon Cardiff Rural District Council and Glamorgan County Council. I reiterate that the transfer will deprive Cardiff Rural District Council of 52 per cent. of its population and 51 per cent. of its rateable value, and that my constituents cannot understand why a change of such magnitude should not receive a transitional period of at least some years.
In the case of Glamorgan, the need for a transitional period arises because the areas affected—Whitchurch, Rhiwbina and others—are closely integrated with other adjoining and adjacent areas of the county in South-East Glamorgan for education, health, welfare administration and other services. I take an obvious example, with which the Under-Secretary of State will be acquainted.
The two secondary schools of Whit-church serve other county areas besides those affected by the Order. Similar arguments, of course, obtain in the case of the Cardiff Rural District Council, which has been an important housing authority with a splendid record of providing council houses as well as special purpose houses for many years.
Whitchurch and Rhiwbina, for example, are closely integrated with other adjoining and adjacent areas for the allocation of council tenancies. If the Order is not annulled or delayed, the rural district council will be deprived at one fell swoop of a large part of its sensible provisions for council houses for persons and families resident in its area.
Great stress has been laid on the need to provide building land for the city and if the Order affected only large areas of undeveloped land or land suitable for building, my constituents might take a different view. But the areas affected, apart from Whitchurch and Rhiwbina, are predominantly built up. They are developed and there is almost no building land available in them. What, indeed, is to be transferred is not building land, but rateable value. There is no real transfer of building land. It is a straightforward transfer of developed, built-up rateable value.
There is one other aspect of the Order to which I must refer. It proposes to transfer a portion of the parish of Radyr, near Cardiff, which includes the ancient parish churchyard and burial ground. For centuries, this burial ground was administered by the local parish church authorities, but 40 years ago it was taken over by the parish council with the voluntary agreement of the Church. It has since been maintained by the parish council, as the burial authority, from rates subscribed by Radyr parishioners alone, and they alone paid for the new extension.
Owing to the limitations of space, and with Home Office agreement, only Radyr parish residents are buried at agreed charges and persons outside the parish have a right of burial at double charges only if they are already in possession of a burial plot or have a previous residential connection with the parish. My constituents at Radyr are profoundly disturbed by this Order, which will not, of course, affect the boundaries of the ecclesiastical parish. Although the Order has been changed to give some extension of time the Order does not in its present form ensure that the persons from the parish of Radyr shall retain their exclusive right of burial in their own burial ground at no enhanced fees, nor that arrangements for other persons shall be continued as at present.
I know that hon. Members on the other side of the Chamber wish to say a few words, and I want to give the Under-Secretary ample opportunity to reply, but I do hope that he will realise that this is a drastic transfer from the giving authorities, the authorities from which this area is being taken. It is a drastic Order which cuts back the existing local authorities in half. It takes away more than half the rateable value. It anticipates possible major changes in the whole local authority structure in the Principality. There would seem to be no good reason why this should be done before the other changes are considered.
It is difficult for my constituents to understand why this has been rushed through in this way. They object to it. In particular, they feel that this matter should not be proceeded with in this way. I believe that the arguments I have put to the hon. Gentleman represent the views of the vast majority of those who live in the area concerned. I hope that I have expressed their views with moderation, without exaggeration. This is an Order which is profoundly objectionable to them, as they have made clear to me, and they regret deeply that it may be done by Ministerial fiat, sustained, as I said before, by a majority of persons who know very little about the facts.
I hope that even at this late hour it can be reconsidered, and that is why I pray against it.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Pearson: The House will appreciate the reasons which


have been given by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) why he found it necessary to pray against this Order. I feel it necessary to express disapproval of the Cardiff Order because it deals with the alteration of local government boundaries for only a part of Wales at a time when there are due for publication proposals for the whole of Wales.
We have been informed that such proposals will be the product of a working party set up by the former Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths). To many hon. Members from the Principality this larger review gave justifiably reasonable grounds for expecting a reluctance to introduce any current innovation while the whole future of local government boundaries was under consideration, but instead we have this unnecessary pushing ahead with the Cardiff Order at an inopportune time.
This has resulted in a good measure of disapproval at the readiness of the Welsh Office in wanting to treat Cardiff unduly favourably by giving it a delectable preliminary bite of the cherry. Why this haste to please the capital at the expense of other highly efficient local authorities? There are many who hold the view that it is a misjudgment. I submit that there should not be any change in boundaries when a major and comprehensive operation in the same sphere is contemplated. In short, to chop and change now is a false step.
We are told that any of the conclusions that the working party may reach will not be prejudiced by the Cardiff Order. I cannot accept this. I believe that the changes in the Order will stay put regardless of any other proposal. The fact that the Order is disapproved of by hon. Members representing Parliamentary constituencies within the administrative County of Glamorgan does not seem to count for much. In a way, their views seem to have been looked upon as so much sawdust—all in all, not the kind of democracy that one relishes.
I do not wish to be over-detailed in my criticisms, but I wish to point out that it is not only Whitchurch and Rhiwbina which are to be added to Cardiff. Adding the land north of Llanishen is a mistake. Despite the assurances given, it gravely prejudices the preservation of the route of the proposed

East-west motorway jealously and successfully safeguarded in the past by the Glamorgan County Council. The northern boundary of the capital at this point should be the southern boundary of the motorway. That is the appropriate limit. In addition, the throwing open for development and building of good quality land seems a neglect for which the future will call a toll.
Another blemish in the Order is the proposal that 365 acres at Forest Hall shall be transferred to the city. The city council has suggested that this area should be allocated for light industry which is situated in the flood plain of the River Taff. These 365 acres are placed between two residential areas of Whit-church and Radyr. What a pity to think of using them for industrial development. These acres should be reserved for playing fields and recreation and an aid for maintaining a green belt along this stretch of the River Taff entering the valleys.
The grounds for adding a part of the Radyr parish called Radyr Court to the city are entirely insufficient. It looks to me as if the case for its inclusion in Cardiff is based upon a misconception. The sole grounds for inclusion were that the area has quite a number of dwelling and may be classed as a well-to-do suburb of the city 'with which it would seem to have very close links. In fact, the greater part of this area consists of county council smallholdings. There is also the old parish church and there are two petrol filling stations. One cannot say that this is suburban development and for these reasons should be added to Cardiff.
I know that the Under-Secretary can quote the Local Government Commission as authority for these changes, that he has taken into consideration objections and has also had regard to the forthcoming White Paper dealing with reorganisation in the rest of Wales. I can only say that, having carefully weighed the case for and against the Order, my disapproval remains, for I am convinced that the Order with its changes is not the right step to take at this time.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Probert: Hon. Members who have spoken have been highly critical of the contents of this Order, in detail. Both my hon. Friend


the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Arthur Pearson) and the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) are directly affected. My criticism is not one of detail, although I have my views on this, but is rather one of timing. It is worth remembering, in relation to the contents of this Order, that in 1961 draft proposals were put to the Secretary of State for Wales by the Local Government Commission for Wales. Page 20, paragraph 69 said:
The areas of Whitchurch and Rhiwbina are substantially built-up, form a continuous development with Cardiff, and cannot be distinguished from other suburbs now within the city limits. It is proposed, therefore, that these two areas should be included in the county borough.
There may or may not be good reasons for that. At least, the Commission considered this very seriously. All of us are aware of what happened to these proposals—they were put to the people of Wales and were certainly not acceptable in any sense and were finally pigeonholed. I do not know whether that pigeonhole is in the present Welsh Office, I hope not. A suspicion quite justifiably exists in the minds of the Glamorgan County Council, other authorities and people interested in local government reform in Wales.
I represent a constituency in the County of Glamorgan and, while I am not criticising or deprecating the details of this Order—there is much in it that is highly desirable—this suspicion is prevalent and highly justified. It is that this Order must conform with the ideas which the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State may have about the future proposals for local government reorganisation in Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales has stated that very shortly a White Paper will be published outlining the proposals which he thinks the people of Wales should consider.
If this is so, and if the suspicion which the Glamorgan County Council, the Cardiff Rural District Council and others have on this point is justified, then we are faced with a fait accompli. If the objections to the proposals to be put to the Welsh people in the White Paper are inclusive of the terms of this Order then, if the objections of the people of Wales to the proposals are successful, inevitably the Order must be changed completely.
Boundary changes which will have taken place since 1st April, changes of personnel which will have taken place, changes of functions, and the movement of personnel will be or could be, reversed once again. If this is to be the case, and if this does not conform to the Secretary of State's ideas as to what the future of local government in Wales should be, then it is right to entertain these suspicions, and this would be a ridiculous position to assume. The only reasonable thing which we can ask the Welsh Office to do is to defer the effect of this Order until all the local government proposals are placed before the House and the Welsh nation. If the terms of the Order had to be completely changed in accordance with the proposals of the working party on local government, the position would be paradoxical and ridiculous in the extreme.
I ask my hon. Friend to consider deferring the Order until we have received the proposals on Welsh local government as a whole from the Welsh Office.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I wish to set right the record about the background to this matter.
There has been reference to what we have come to call the Myrddin-Evans Report on Local Government Reorganisation in Wales, which had to be considered by the previous Government and by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who was then Minister for Welsh Affairs. He announced his decision in the House, and I beg hon. Members to remember what it was. There were, first, proposals regarding the county boroughs. It was proposed that the boundaries of three of them—Swansea, Cardiff and Newport—should be extended to take in areas which had become contiguous to them. No one can dispute that the areas dealt with in the Order are essentially parts of the City of Cardiff. To think that one can divide Cardiff from Rhiwbina, for instance, is wrong.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East announced to the House without very much protest that, while there were objections to the general proposals for the reorganisation of the county boundaries, he thought that, on the basis of the Myrrdin-Evans Report, the case had been made out for an extension of


the boundaries of the three county boroughs which I have mentioned.
The statutory provisions for considering these extensions which led to these Orders were set in motion before I became Secretary of State for Wales. I presume that the Order for Newport has gone through. I presume that the Order for Swansea has gone through or is on the way without objection from any quarter. Now we have had the objections put forward, rightly, by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and others in respect of this Order.
I gave very serious consideration to the proposals put forward for the extension of the boundaries of all three county boroughs. All of them create difficulties. Difficulties arise from the fact that the towns grow outwards and develop an organic association with the areas around them.
I am glad that we are considering the future reorganisation of local government in Wales. Everyone admits in private that the time is overdue for a radical reorganisation. The difficulty is to get people to say it in public. I hope that the Secretary of State will have a better reception. I trust that people will consider the proposals constructively. They will have the right to object. Statutory provisions will have to be complied with and there will be all kinds of constitation.
I considered very carefully whether the proposals for the extension of the boundaries of these three county boroughs, which seem to me to be quite natural extensions, would stand in the way of a radical reorganisation of local government in Wales, and I came to the conclusion that they would not.
I intervene only for the purpose of setting right the order of events. This had been set in train by the previous Conservative Government, and the procedure was well on the way towards completion by the time that I became Secretary of State.
There are no doubt different views as to precisely where the lines should be drawn. However, I have known Cardiff for many years, and, on the whole, this proposed extension of the boundary of the city is fully justified, although it is not all that Cardiff wanted. It is our capital city, and I hope that it will be content with

this extension. It is now a city which, in its boundaries and its population, can look forward to prosperity.
I hope that, in future, there will be no attempt to extend the boundaries further than the present proposals. I have a view about the optimum size of a city in a country like Wales. However, Cardiff is entitled to this, and I hope that the House will grant it.
As one who took some part in the early stages of this matter, I think that the Order is fully justified, and I hope that hon. Members will support it.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: I wish to say a brief word in support of the very moderate plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), and to congratulate him upon the way in which he has put his case.
As this Prayer has had support from both sides of the House and has been cogently argued, I rise only to ask the Under-Secretary of State whether, in his reply, he will make a specific point of answering the question which has been put from both sides. Why should this change in boundaries take place before the Royal Commission reports and, as the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) said, before publication of the White Paper which will result on the reorganisation of local government in Wales?
The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths), who has far greater experience in these matters than most of us, has seen this matter growing up over the years. His contribution to the debate, as usual, was well reasoned and received the ear of the House.
We shall have the Report of the Royal Commission towards the end of the year. As usual, Wales will lead in these matters, and England will lag behind. If that is so, I can quite see the point raised by my hon. Friend and by hon. Members opposite. Why should this proposal be put to the House before publication of the Royal Commission's Report?
The right hon. Gentleman was quite right when he said that the local authorities concerned, the Glamorgan County Council and the Cardiff Rural District Council have had something to say on the matter. I will not go over what they have said, but I ask the Under-Secretary


of State to reply adequately to the question raised initially by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry, and tell the House why it is necessary at this stage, with the Royal Commission about to report, to have this Order brought before the House.

10.55 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ifor Davies): The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), with his usual clarity and courtesy, has put his case before the House. In response to the appeals which have been made to me, I assure hon. Members that I shall give as clear and as direct an explanation as I can. In reply to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt), may I say that, I owe it to the House to give very clear and detailed answers, and since time is on my side I propose to do so.
This Order is the culmination of a process begun as long ago as 1959, when the Local Government Commission for Wales was set up to make proposals for boundary changes of counties and county boroughs. The proposals made by the Commission in 1963 for county amalgamations proved unacceptable, and this matter is now being dealt with in another way.
However, the Commission's proposals for major extensions to the county boroughs of Newport and Cardiff were accepted by the Secretary of State, as we have heard. The Order dealing with Newport County Borough was debated in this House and came into force on 1st April of this year. It was not possible to get the Cardiff Order ready to be operative on the same date, but essentially this Order is part of the same decision, taken for much the same general reasons as the Newport County Borough one.
It was suggested by some hon. Members—and this was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Arthur Pearson)—that as we were so near to a much more comprehensive reorganisation we should abandon this Order even at this late stage. The hon. Member for Hereford, too, made this point. Local government reorganisation is under consideration, and the House would not expect me to elaborate on that point tonight. In the meantime, there are problems which will be made easier when the

changes brought about by this Order come into effect, and my right hon. Friend is satisfied—and I say this in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert)—that there is nothing in this Order which will prejudice decisions about the wider issues of local government reorganisation now under consideration.
I do not think that there is any justification for the fears and suspicions which my hon. Friend mentioned. It has been suggested unless the date of transfer was put back another year, that is until 1st April, 1968, both the Cardiff Rural District and the Glamorgan County Council would suffer serious administrative difficulties. There are always administrative difficulties attendant on the transfer of areas between local authorities, particularly when the transfer involves a large number of people, and those mentioned to us seem in no way abnormal.
The hon. Member for Barry complained that the Order is being rushed, I would remind the House that it was as long ago as May, 1965, that the Secretary of State announced his decision on the Commission's recommendations. At that time, his aim was to bring this Order into effect on the 1st April, 1966, but, as I have said, this proved to be impracticable, not, I might add, because of any representations from either the county or the county rural district council, and on 22nd February the Welsh Office told the local authorities that the changes would be made effective as from 1st April, 1967.

Mr. Gower: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that local authorities should act on statements by Ministers? Surely they should act only when things are done by this House? Surely this doctrine, which has been promulgated recently, is a very dangerous one indeed?

Mr. Davies: I am not suggesting such a thing. I was replying to the statement that the Order had been rushed, and I mentioned the steps taken and the fact that the decision is quite clear that the administrative difficulties do not seem to justify to my right hon. Friend the further deferment of the transfers. The date has been widely known for some time, and I hope that the House will agree tonight that it should not now be changed.
On the merits of the change, the Commission made a very thorough analysis


and there was a public inquiry into the objections. The conclusion of both was that there should be substantial extension of the county borough boundary. Much has been said about this or that land being needed or not being needed for development, but my right hon. Friend believes that the Commission's approach was the right one.
I want to quote to the House paragraph 737 of the Report, which says:
We cannot regard Cardiff County Borough as it now exists as being so extensive that its expansion must be prevented at all costs. It occupies a key position in the dynamic area which South Wales has now become and it is impossible for us to draw up an exact schedule of its land needs for the next fifteen years. What we have tried to do is to estimate its needs broadly and, having decided that they could not be met within the present city confines, to suggest adding to the city areas within which such development could take place. We must point out, however, that within such added areas the Minister will have power to control development and it is quite impossible for us to forecast how much of the added land will actually be developed.
It is against this background that the proposals should be judged tonight.
The Secretary of State has agreed in general with the Commission's thinking. He accepts the county council's view that it would be wrong to acquiesce in unlimited expansion of the city without considering its future size in the context of the whole of South-East Wales, but he was satisfied that the city's need to have land available within its periphery for what might be regarded as its short-term and medium-term needs was at least as great as the Commission had set out and, indeed, justified the addition of several hundred acres more.
It was, therefore, only reasonable that, provided long-term planning objectives for South-East Wales, including the important question of traffic planning, would not be prejudiced—and my right hon. Friend is completely satisfied about that— the city council should be allowed the limited expansion proposed in the Order.

Mr. E. Rowlands: Will my hon. Friend nevertheless give an assurance to us that this Order will not prejudice any future more radical change in the city boundary in the whole concept of the reorganisation of local government in South Wales?

Mr. Davies: It does not prejudice any future development. It is surely reasonable, provided long-term planning objectives in South-East Wales—including the important question of traffic planning—will not be prejudiced, that the city should be allowed the limited expansion proposed in the order.
As for the built-up areas of Whitchurch and Rhiwbina—and the hon. Member for Barry, said that whatever may be his feelings he had a duty to put before the House the feelings of his constituents—there can be few impartial observers who would regard them as anything but suburbs of Cardiff.
No one who was asked to draw local authority boundaries from scratch would do other than count these built-up areas as physically part of the city. I recognise that people living in Whitchurch and Rhiwbina may feel that they have a vigorous community life of their own, but there can be no doubt that these areas are part of the Cardiff community, even if, like Llandaff and other existing suburbs of Cardiff, they have a local government community life too. There is no reason why the community life of Whit-church and Rhiwbina should not continue to flourish when the area is part of Cardiff.
Whitchurch cannot claim now to have any rural village characteristics. The greater part of its development has taken place as a result of the growth of the city's economy and in response to the need for houses for people working in the city, many of them formerly city residents needing a house and garden for young families. It is right that these people for whom Cardiff is a focal point, should have a share in its government. Whitchurch residents, in common with the residents of other parishes affected by similar Orders, want no change. Their wishes merit respect, but the Commission would not have been given its task if the final conclusions on local government were not to depend on wider considerations as well. Direct comparison of individual services tends to be profitless because circumstances vary so much. Over all their functions and services Cardiff City Council provide at least as good local government as the three tier system at present enjoyed by Whitchurch residents.
The city's rates are higher than those in the county areas affected, but it has been decided that the immediate impact of an increase in rates for the added areas should be softened by the provision in the Order for differential rating. This will ensure that the rates in the transferred area will not rise by more than 6d. on account of transfer, although they may rise, of course, on account of increased costs.
The hon. Member for Barry raised the question of the Radyr burial ground. I appreciate that this is a delicate and personal matter, and I wish to deal with it in that way. The St. John's churchyard burial ground at Radyr is included in the Radyr Court area which is transferred to the city by this Order. The burial ground was vested in the Radyr Parish Council under the Welsh Church Acts as a consequence of the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, and is now held and administered by the parish council as a burial authority under the Burial Acts. When the Cardiff Order takes effect, this burial ground will be held and administered under the same Acts by the Cardiff City Council.
I am advised that the law confers a right of burial in one's own parish burial ground, but not in the burial ground of any other parish, although permission is usually granted if sought. Any such permission invariably carries with it a requirement to pay higher fees, normally double the fees which the authority charges its own parishioners.
Clearly, this would cause hardship when, as a result of boundary changes, an existing burial ground passes into another burial authority's area, while some of the parishioners who would have expected to be buried there remain outside the new boundary. It is, therefore, customary, in county borough boundary extension Orders, to specify a period during which such parishioners may retain their former rights of burial and pay no extra charges.
This policy has been followed in the Cardiff Order in relation both to the St. John's churchyard burial ground and to a burial ground at Whitchurch, both of which will, when the Order takes effect, become part of the City. The Cardiff Rural District Council, the Radyr Parish Council and the Radyr Parochial Church

Council objected to this and asked that the burial rights of the Radyr parishioners in the Radyr burial ground should remain unchanged in perpetuity. The parishioners of Tongwynlais made the same point in respect of their burial ground.
My right hon. Friend takes the view that concessionary rights in perpetuity cannot be justified. Apart from the practical difficulties, it had to be remembered that the maintenance of these burial grounds will in future be wholly at the expense of the City Council. If appropriate, it will be open to the parish council to seek financial adjustment under the powers of Section 151 of the Local Government Act, 1933.
Nevertheless, and I am very glad to say this, after considering the representations, the Secretary of State decided to extend the concessionary period from 15 to 50 years, so that the rights of parishioners would be preserved until 31st March, 2017. This concession is considerably more generous than in any similar English county borough boundary Orders, and I am sure that the House will agree that it goes a long way, and as far as practicable in alleviating possible hardship.
The question has been asked: why has it been included? The Cardiff City Council has been constituted as a burial authority under the Burial Acts for the whole of Cardiff, and it is, therefore, considered that once these burial grounds form part of an area within the City of Cardiff the appropriate authority to control and exercise jurisdiction over this ground under the burial Acts must be the Cardiff City Council. I trust that puts the position quite clearly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd referred to the area of North Llanishen. The Order provides for the transfer to the city of 1,200 acres of largely undeveloped land in this part of Whitchurch and Lisvane parishes lying to the north of the line of the projected South Wales motorway as shown in the county development plan. In approving the Commission's recommendation to include this land with the city, the Secretary of State did not overlook the fact that he had recently refused permission for the housing development of a substantial part of it. He took the view, however, that whatever form the future development of this land took, the city must have more


elbow room in which to plan its overall development within its own boundaries.
Planning is a constantly changing exercise which must be flexible enough to meet changing conditions. There is no reason to believe that Cardiff City Council will be any worse planning authority than Glamorgan County Council in respect of the areas added to the city; the Secretary of State regards them both as responsible planning authorities. But if development is proposed which is substantially out of accord with the development plan, the Secretary of State will have the opportunity of considering it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd also referred to the problem of Forest Hall. This area was not among those which the Commission recommended; it was added by the Secretary of State following the public local inquiry. The inspector felt that a satisfactory case had been made out for the inclusion of this area within the city, although he considered that it would be inappropriate to include it unless Whitchurch was also included—having in mind, no doubt, that otherwise the area would he physically separate from the rest of the city.
Whitchurch was included, and the Secretary of State considered it sensible that the boundary of the added areas on this side of the city should be extended to the River Taff, thus not only embracing the undeveloped land in the Forest Hall area, and some high flats owned by the rural district council which he felt might impose an undue drain on the finances of the weakened rural district council, but also making use of a clear, natural boundary.
Radyr Court is an area of about 300 acres which the Commission recommended should be added to the city for two reasons: to provide more building land and to produce a more regular boundary. It has been suggested that the inspector's description of the area is misleading. Whether or not this is so, the primary reason for adding this area is to make it available for development as part of the city to meet part of the needs to which I have referred. Its inclusion will undoubtedly produce a better boundary. Indeed, if this change were not made a most inappropriate rural wedge into the outskirts of the city would be left.
I notice in his place the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who intervened when we had a Prayer on the Newport Order. He then made a point relevant to some legal aspects of the Orders. I made a particular note of his comments, which appear in column 1582 of HANSARD of 3rd May. On that occasion, I said that I thought that he was mistaken and I repeat that tonight. There was some doubt as to the propriety of the legal position. It was contended by him that the Secretary of State had no power to make the provision contained in Article 54 of the Newport Order—and this is the same kind of situation—indealing with the compensation of transferred officers.
I told him that I appreciated his intervention and the importance of the point made, and I was equally concerned to see that there was no misunderstanding about the matter. He argued that the power to make such a provision is contained in Section 60(2) of the Local Government Act, 1958, and that this power had not been transferred to the Secretary of State for Wales. Similar provision to that contained in Article 54 of the Newport Order has been made in Article 54 of this Order and it is, therefore, appropriate for me to put the record right.
It is agreed that the Secretary of State has no power to make general compensation regulations under Section 60(2). This power still continues to be exercised by the Minister of Housing and Local Government or such other Ministers as are determined by the Treasury. But Article 54 of the Cardiff Order and Article 54 of the Newport Order were made under Section 60(1) of the Local Government Act, 1958, when read with Section 23 and Section 38. This power was transferred to the Secretary of State for Wales and it does enable him to make the specific provision contained in Article 54 to deal with the application of these general regulations to the circumstances of the case.
I have said that my right hon. Friend and I cannot agree to the deferment of the Order, and I hope that the House will agree that it should now he accepted.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the Minister for referring


to a point which I raised on a previous occasion, whether there was power legally to make a regulation such as is contained in Article 54 of this Order. It is the most roundabout way to acquire the legal power to make the Order, but I am grateful to him for explaining it.
May I, however, refer to a matter more of principle, not in connection with Article 54 but in connection with the Order as a whole. It is unfortunate that this Order is brought before the House when the Royal Commission is sitting to consider the whole subject of local government both in England and Wales.

Mr. Probert: The hon. Member is not correct. The Royal Commission is considering local government only in England.

Mr. Crosby: But it may well bring forward principles of local government which will apply both in England and in Wales and for that reason it is unfortunate that the Order should come forward at this stage, particularly having regard to the fact that the recommendation upon which this Order is based was made as long ago as 1962. The Local Government Commission for Wales, in its Report, submitted proposals for Wales in December, 1962. That Report came before the House at that time. The Commission then said, on page 149:
Since we decided upon our draft proposals"—
I pause there; the proposals were similar to those contained in the present Order—
there have been four main developments. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government in conjunction with the planning authorities in South Wales have commenced a study of the main planning problem of the area as a whole. This survey will undoubtedly cover the nature and extent of the need for housing land…
This was one of the considerations, and it went on to many others.
At that time, in 1962, the Local Government Commission for Wales was uncertain about its recommendations and it set them out in the Report. It was uncertain because the Ministry was carrying out further investigations. Indeed, on the next page, 150, the Commission said:
We should have preferred not to have come to a decision before the Minister has

completed his investigations into the planning problem of the South Wales area.
Many years have elapsed since 1962, and now, on the eve, as it were, of the Royal Commission setting down certain principles of local government throughout the country this Order is brought before the House.
The hon. Gentleman said that this does not prejudice further reorganisation, but surely that is a very naive statement. If the Order is made it is unlikely that it will be altered later when the Commission makes its recommendations. Undoubtedly, whatever he may say, this is going to prejudice future arrangements. No Government, whether the present Government, or that to come when the Opposition—I hope, shortly—will be in their position on the other side of the Chamber, are likely to alter Orders of this sort, whatever recommendations there may be from the Royal Commission. Therefore, I think it must prejudice the future. The very fact that the Commission showed doubts and that subsequently the Royal Commission has been appointed makes it most inopportune for this Order to be brought before the House at this time.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Ifor Davies: By leave of the House, may I speak again, to say to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that I took advantage of the opportunity to clarify the point he made on the last occasion on a legal matter. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman has rather disappointed me, because I thought that he would have raised some more obscure legal points. He has not taken advantage of that opportunity tonight. Instead, he has repeated what was said by other speakers.
I am bound myself, therefore, to repeat what I said earlier, that my right hon. Friend is satisfied that there is nothing in this Order—I say it with emphasis—which will prejudice decision on the wider issues of local government reorganisation now under examination. The plain fact is that Cardiff needs this Order now, as I have explained in detail, and that further investigations are relating to the long term. For these reasons, I say, once again, that I hope that the House will approve the Order.

Question put and negatived.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, EAST LONDON

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bishop.]

11.26 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Hilton: I am very glad to have the opportunity in this debate tonight of raising the question of the mental health problems of East London. Some of my colleagues have asked me, why such a broad and generic title? I have deliberately chosen the title because I want to raise in this debate the reasons why people become mentally ill; the way in which the illness is treated; the way in which the money is raised to pay for treatment and the way in which I believe money ought to be raised for local authority after-care services.
Although I am directing my remarks particularly to the Borough of Tower Hamlets, in which my constituency is situated, I think that the matter being raised tonight has implications for every city and town throughout the length of this country which has areas where there has been gross social under-privilege for many years. I want to make very clear what I mean when I say gross social under-privilege. I mean cities and towns which have areas of decaying houses and slums, schools which do not have a single blade of green grass, let alone a playing field, where there are low average incomes per family and where one finds a lower standard of general environmental conditions than one finds throughout the country as a whole.
In my constituency of Bethnal Green and South Hackney, in the East End of London, this is a reasonably accurate description of the conditions in some areas. I would not say, however, that it is an area full of slums and generally bad conditions, because local authorities in the area comprising many councillors with wisdom and foresight have done what they can, but the problem is very large and there is still much to be done. That is why I particularly wish to raise this question of the mental health aspect tonight.
People living in areas where there has been gross social under-privilege are more

likely to be prone not only to physical illness, but to be subject to such social stress that it can lead to a mental breakdown. One may find that the local mental hospitals in such areas have a very high rate of admissions. This is exactly what is happening in the Borough of Tower Hamlets. The social conditions under which people live can, I believe, be measured by the rate of admissions to mental hospitals in the area. I know that this is a point which causes some dissent among those people who have researched into the problem, but let me state the facts.
The Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association, which deserves great tribute for the public service and work that it is doing, made a survey into the problems of the East End of London, specially related to the mental health aspect. The Association stated that the admissions to mental hospitals in the Borough of Tower Hamlets was 77 per cent. above the national average. When I raised this matter with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health recently in the House, he questioned the figure of 77 per cent. and said that it was nearer 40 per cent. Whatever the actual figure may be, there is no doubt that the Minister, even on his own admission, has conceded the principle of the case that I am making that a grave problem exists in the East End.
The reason that I bring the Tower Hamlets position before the House is that a considerable proportion of the financial burden of looking after these unfortunate people falls squarely upon the local authority and is not borne out of national resources. The local authority has to pay for after-care—that is to say, the care of these people after they are discharged from hospital—out of the local rate funds. If anything has been grasped from what I have said tonight, it should be that those rate funds are already under a severe strain because of the demand upon them to alleviate the social conditions which contribute to sending people into mental hospitals.
At this point, I want to explode a fallacy which is commonly held about the National Health Service. There is no National Health Service in this country in the common concept: many people to whom one speaks think that there is a National Health Service which takes care


of every aspect of physical and mental illness. This is not so.
What we have is a combined national and local health service, and the National Health Service, which has its funds raised reasonably equitably, deals only with part of the problem. But a local authority has to rely upon the rates it can raise to deal with local after-care problems, especially mental health. It does not take much reasoning to realise that some local authorities have a bigger burden of this work to carry out than others, and, therefore, the amount that has to be raised in rates, or the amount to be devoted from their rates funds to this work is very much greater than other local authorities, where the problem does not arise to the same extent.
Therefore, the National Health Service pays for and takes care of patients while they are in mental hospitals, but as soon as they are discharged, at a time when they require very great assistance to help them settle successfully back into a community atmosphere, the expense of that work has to be borne by the local authority. This is the point that I put to the Minister just over three weeks ago. I asked him whether he did not agree that, if there were these very high rates in the East End of admissions into mental hospitals, there was a proportionately higher rate of after-carework. I pointed out that this would mean a very much greater financial burden on the rate funds of the Tower Hamlets and many other local authorities.
I continued by asking whether he would not
…consider whether a special grant should be made in these cases?
My right hon. Friend replied:
I have no powers to make a special grant." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1966; Vol. 735, c. 32–3.]
That was a reply from the Minister, but it was not a reply to the question asked, namely, whether he considered that something ought to be done. I did not want to be told simply that he did not have the power to do anything. I know that present legislation does not enable him to make special grants. But my point was that, in view of the undeniable circumstances existing, would he not consider the entire matter afresh, even

to the extent of thinking about legislation to help areas with special problems, such as Tower Hamlets?
What are those undeniable circumstances, to which I have referred? The first is the simple fact, as the Minister has stated, that the Tower Hamlets Borough is already paying 10 per cent. more on health services, than the national average and 20 per cent. more than the average of the rest of the London boroughs. Surely this admission by the Minister completely substantiates the case that I am making?
I am asking, sincerely and seriously: is it right or just for a Minister to admit the existence of a problem but to refuse to consider ways in which to solve that problem? It is because I take a very serious view of this that I agree entirely with the report of the Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association, when it states that special responsibilities for providing residential accommodation, day centres and training centres, and general aftercare work was placed on local authorities in the Mental Health Act, 1959, but no special aid was made available for local authorities to fulfill adequately these functions. The Report goes on:
Any additional expenditure on mental after-care has to be made at the expense of other local authority health services.
Because Tower Hamlets is an area where there is a great demand for all services, one can appreciate the serious difficulties faced by councillors in trying to allocate scarce financial resources in a just and equitable manner. It can be said with some justification that they have an impossible task and I do not envy them in having to face this task.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will not be replying tonight, but my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary will.
I wish to say to my hon. Friend that any constituency problem which I have raised with him has always met with sympathetic consideration. I could not have wished for greater co-operation from any Minister in the Government. That is why I appeal to him, with some hope of a favourable response, to consider how seriously placed Tower Hamlets is in trying to meet this problem out of the rate fund.
I have already said that some researchers differ as to why people go into mental institutions, and I think that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has some differences with me on this matter. I can only give my own evidence, arising from case work in Bethnal Green and South Hackney, that a great deal of mental stress is caused through living in decaying houses and in a generally low standard environment.
I cite in support of that statement the Milner Holland Report on London's housing in general, which stated categorically:
…applications for rehousing on medical grounds have shown the preponderance of two concomitants of multiple occupation—respiratory illness and psychological or psychomatic disorders.
This is extremely valuable evidence supporting my contention that at living in an area which is decaying helps to accelerate mental breakdown.
Not only in Bethnal Green, Stepney and Poplar, within the area of Tower Hamlets, are we spending well above the average on mental health services, but we are also spending more on another service which gives me great concern, and some of this expenditure is due partly to the breakdown of parents. I refer to the children's service. Children are usually the first to suffer when anything happens to the parents, and the deprivation which they may experience in their early years makes them susceptible in adult life to the same pressures which put their parents in mental hospitals.
What is the present position in Tower Hamlets? The estimated rate poundage spent on children's services for this year is just over 1s. 2d. This is 57 per cent. above the average for all inner London boroughs of approximately 8¼d. The net effect is that Tower Hamlets, an area which should be receiving Government assistance, is having to rate itself at 11s. 6d. in the £, the highest rate of the 12 inner London boroughs, to try to cope with its problems. The people there have done a great deal to help themselves. East Enders have a resilient spirit. They have tried to cope with this problem. Voluntary organisations are also helping the local authority, otherwise the problem would be even greater.
I hope that the Ministry will consider this grave matter as it arises in my borough, and perhaps in other boroughs,

with a view to doing something legislatively to help. I appeal to my hon. Friend to consider all of the facts which I have given him and to realise that if I am asking his Ministry to consider the possibility of giving assistance, it is for people who have already proved themselves worthy of any assistance which can be given to them.
I conclude by saying that I hope he takes a view of this problem not limited by narrow financial considerations, but based upon sympathetic understanding of what is a very human and real problem in the East End.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I desire to take less than one minute of the time of the House to make two points. The first and more important one is to pay my tribute and express my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Hilton) not only for raising this matter, but for the deep thought, considerable research and hard work that he has put into the question, as will be evident to everyone who has heard what he said. By his action in bringing the matter to public notice and the trouble that he has taken to do so in the most informed way, he has put in his debt not only his own constituents, but my constituents and those of the third constituency which goes to make up the Borough of Tower Hamlets.
The second and lighter point which I want to make is that during the nearly 20 years that I have been in this House, this is the first occasion on which I have been present at a debate at which not one hon. Member of the Opposition has been present. I am sorry to say that that seems to be an indication of the fact that hon. Members who should be opposite are totally indifferent to grave social problems of the sort that my hon. Friend has raised.

11.41 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Hilton) on calling the attention of the House tonight to services needed for the mentally ill. This is a subject of importance to every one of us and, therefore, I welcome this opportunity to discuss what is being done, with particular reference to East London.
Our object is that a fully comprehensive service should be developed in every part of the country by co-operation between the three branches of the National Health Service. I shall, however, refer mainly to the hospital and the local health authority services and the interaction between them.
My hon. Friend has said that the admission rate to mental hospitals among the population of Tower Hamlets is 77 per cent. above the national average, and that that throws a burden on the local health authority in connection with the after-care service quite out of proportion to its financial resources.
To take, first, the figure of an admission rate 77 per cent. higher than normal, I understand that that figure was based on a study of records at St. Clement's Hospital, Bow, and Long Grove Hospital, Epsom—the main hospitals serving the area—as compared with national figures obtained from my Department; these figures were for adults aged 21 or over. The Department's statistics are not normally collected on that basis, but relate to the population of all ages.
Our statistics suggest that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health was quite correct when he said that the admission rate from Tower Hamlets is about 43 per cent. above the national average. The way in which this figure has been calculated is as follows. The admissions so far this year from Tower Hamlets to Long Grove and St. Clement's indicate an annual rate of 4·8 per thousand of the population. The 1965 national figure was 3·36 per 1,000 of the population. Thus, the figure for Tower Hamlets is 42·8 per cent. above last year's national figure. However, I do not think that it is really profitable to spend too much time discussing these figures.
The hospital in-patient admission rate is not always indicative of the incidence of mental illness, nor even of the demand for the services of care and aftercare in the community for which local health authorities are responsible. A great many patients receive psychiatric treatment as out-patients. Local health authority services will be needed for some, but not for all, of those who have had or are having in-patient or out-patient treatment, and possibly for some who have

not needed specialist psychiatric treatment at all. In-patient figures, therefore, should not be used in isolation, and even the total number receiving hospital services, including out-patients, cannot be regarded as more than a very approximate guide to the demands for local authority services.
Moreover, the number of patients receiving hospital treatment rises as treatment facilities improve. In-patient admissions to St. Clement's have shown a marked increase since a 30-bed intensive treatment unit came into use in 1965. The high turnover rate achieved at this unit is not necessarily an indication of a high incidence of mental illness, but reflects the fact that treatment is more readily available. Out-patient and day-patient attendances at St. Clement's have also risen fairly substantially. Outpatient attendances rose from 4,616 in 1964 to 7,800 in 1965, and day-patient attendances from 6,083 to 8,114. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that increases of this order reflect improved facilities for treatment, rather than a dramatic rise in incidence.
Nevertheless, I agree with my hon. Friend that the supporting services which many patients need after discharge from hospital, or for that matter while receiving treatment as out-patients and living at home, need to be greatly expanded. It is only since 1959, following the report of the Royal Commission on Mental Health, that this has been regarded as a major responsibility of the local health authorities. Before that, social work for discharged patients, in so far as it was provided at all, was provided mainly by the hospitals, and this was especially difficult in areas such as inner London for which the mental hospitals were sited on the outskirts of the London area.
Since 1959, however, local health authorities have had a duty to provide services for the prevention of mental illness, and for the care and after-care of those who are, or have been, ill. The main components of these services are social workers to support patients and their families in dealing with many prolems associated with mental illness; residential accommodation for short or long periods if patients cannot suitably remain in their own homes; and suitable occupations for any who cannot do their


normal work. Provision for industrial rehabilitation may, of course, be made by the Ministry of Labour. All these services need to be planned and operated in close collaboration with the hospitals which provide the psychiatric treatment.
Local health authorities have been called on to develop these services at a time when they have also had to meet many other demands for improvements in other social services to which, in some respects, my hon. Friend referred. In spite of this, local authority services for the mentally ill have developed fast throughout the country, not least in the part of London with which we are concerned tonight.
The number of people receiving local health authority services for mental illness in England and Wales rose from 31,943 at the end of 1960 to 71,379 at the end of 1965, an increase of nearly 125 per cent. In the last two years alone they rose by more than 15,500, an increase of 28 per cent. In these last two years the number of social workers employed has risen by 15 per cent., the number of mentally ill people provided with residential accommodation by 70 per cent., and the number of places in day centres has nearly doubled.
I should have liked to have been able to give my hon. Friend similar comparisons to illustrate the rate of development in Tower Hamlets, but, as he knows, this authority was created under the London reorganisation in 1965, so there are no statistics available for this precise area for past years. In Inner London as a whole, which corresponds with the area of the former London County Council, the number of mentally ill persons receiving local authority services has risen in these two years by 52 per cent. compared with 28 per cent. in England and Wales as a whole, and the number of social workers employed has risen by 39 per cent. compared, again, with 15 per cent. for England and Wales as a whole.
It can also be shown how the services now provided by the Council of Tower Hamlets compare with those provided by local health authorities in England and Wales as a whole. In 1965–66, this London borough spent on its mental health services approximately £320 per 1,000 population; this compares with a national figure of £290, so Tower Ham-

lets spent approximately 10 per cent. more than the national average. These figures refer to local authority mental health services as a whole, that is, those provided for the mentally ill and for the mentally subnormal, as the financial statistics are not sub-divided; I appreciate, however, that my hon. Friend's main concern this evening is with the mentally ill.
At the end of last year there were 482 mentally ill persons receiving mental health services from the Tower Hamlets authority. This represents 2·36 persons per 1,000 population compared with a national figure of 1·49. Twenty-seven were provided with residential accommodation, which is 0·13 per 1,000 population compared with the national figure of 0·04. Sixty-eight people were attending day centres for the mentally ill, representing 0·33 per 1,000 population compared with a national figure of 0·03. At the same date, this authority was employing 13 social workers—that is, whole—time equivalents—equal to 0·06 per 1,000 population as compared with the national figure of 0·03. This authority's 10-year plans forecast further development.
I must stress that it would be misleading to conclude from the figures that I have quoted that the need for services of this type are greater here than in the country as a whole. Local authorities generally are still at a very early stage in the development of their mental health services, and the conclusion to be drawn is that in this part of London more progress has already been made than in the country as a whole.
My hon. Friend has suggested that poor housing and social conditions lead to a higher incidence of mental illness, and that these same conditions give the boroughs a low rateable value and thus less financial resources to support the services needed. There is, in fact, no evidence that poor housing and social conditions are a cause of mental illness, though they exacerbate the associated social difficulties and may make it more difficult to provide a suitable environment for a convalescent patient.
I now turn to the arrangements for financing the local authority mental health services, which my hon. Friend has mentioned. The Minister of Health has no power to make a grant to local


authorities generally or individually, in aid of their local health services, which include their mental health services. As I understand the procedures of this House it is extremely difficult to talk about legislation in an Adjournment debate, and I think it would be wrong for me to go into the question whether legislation would or would not be possible.
Exchequer assistance towards the cost of these services, as well as others such as education, child care—to which my hon. Friend referred—and services for the elderly is given through the general grant, which leaves each authority free to decide its own policy and priorities in the raising and spending of its money

without the detailed control from Whitehall which specific grants to individual authorities for particular services would inevitably entail. I think that we are right in saying that this is the correct way.
I want to mention the question of the financial resources of this local authority. I have looked at the financial resources——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at six minutes to Twelve o'clock.